The World and Everything in It: July 6, 2026

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Before we get to today’s program, one more word of thanks because we simply cannot thank you enough!

NICK EICHER, HOST: No, we really can't. The generosity you showed during WORLD’s June Giving Drive has been deeply encouraging to all of us who do this work every day.

You reminded us just how many people believe that sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth, is worth supporting.

REICHARD: We don’t take that support for granted.

So again, thank you. We’re grateful for your generosity—and grateful to have you with us.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Today’s Supreme Court dissent, is it tomorrow’s majority opinion?

SWEARER: I see this being the silver lining going forward...

NICK EICHER, HOST: We’ll wrap up the last of the big decisions today on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: Halfway through the year, how are economic predictions going? We’ll talk it over with David Bahnsen.

And the WORLD History Book: rediscovering a founding father.

LOCONTE: He is absolutely animated by his Christian faith, that is a central part of his life.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, July 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: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Netanyahu to meet with Trump amid tensions » Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to visit the White House in the coming days amid some friction with President Trump. The two leaders are at odds — over Israel's military strikes in Lebanon.

But Netanyahu said Sunday:

NETANYAHU: 99% of the time we see eye to eye, but as in any family, in any close friendship, there are sometimes differences of opinion, and we discuss them openly, I can tell you in a free spirit, and usually we resolve them too.

As the U.S. pushes to seal a peace deal with Iran, Trump has publicly bristled at Israel's ongoing attacks in Lebanon — reportedly telling Netanyahu to stop.

Iranian leaders are threatening to walk away from peace talks unless Israel halts its strikes against the Iran-backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon.

But Netanyahu said whatever happens with the peace talks, one thing is certain:

NETANYAHU: Deal or no deal, as long as I'm prime minister, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.

Iran Khamenei funeral » Meantime, peace talks between the U.S. and Iran went quiet over the weekend. They paused for the funeral of Iran's late supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Hundreds of thousands filled the streets of Tehran, chanting "death to America" and demanding revenge for the February airstrike that killed him. His sons and Iran's top officials marched with them.

A religious poet worked the crowd:

RASSOULI: [Speaking Farsi]

As some called for the deaths of President Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu.

But one man was absent: Iran's new supreme leader — Khamenei's own son Mojtaba — who still hasn't been seen, believed in hiding after being wounded in the same strike that killed his father.

SOUND: [July 4 flyover]

July 4th weekend festivities lookback » American fighter jets roaring over the nation’s capital. As the Blue Angels performed a flyover, marking America’s 250th birthday. Just one part of a massive celebration over the weekend.

One woman said she traveled from Arizona to take part.

WOMAN: I thought it was  amazing. We've been planning this trip for two years now, and we waited in the hot, hot, hot, and then we hid in the museum, and then we stood in the rain, and it was worth every minute. It was great!

Hundreds of thousands packed the National Mall to enjoy live music and witness a record-shattering fireworks display, more than 850,000 bursts from 10 sites.

President Trump also marked the milestone.

TRUMP: At 250 years old, we may be the oldest constitutional republic on Earth, but our country is just getting started because the best is yet to come.

From New York to Boston, cities marked the day with parades, cookouts and fireworks.

And in Philadelphia — the birthplace of independence — officials buried a time capsule, filled with items from all 50 states. Park superintendent Steve Sims:

STEVE SIMS: The time capsule we bury today is more than an artifact. It is a message carried forward through time. It reflects a nation still striving, still debating, still building, still expanding the meaning of its founding ideals.

It won't be opened until 2276 — America's 500th.

Pastor released in China » A prominent Chinese pastor is free — and back with his family in the U.S. — after President Trump pressed his case with Beijing.

Ezra Jin Mingri leads the underground Zion Church, one of China's largest. He and 17 other church leaders were locked up last October in a sweeping crackdown. Now, less than two months after Trump raised his case with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Jin has landed in Los Angeles. Chinese officials said he was freed as a goodwill gesture around the Fourth of July.

But at least eight fellow Zion Church members remain behind bars.

Box office » At the weekend box office, the Minions are back.

CLIP (Minions & Monsters): You wrote a monster movie? What are you going to use for your monster? Ah ha.

The latest animated Minions movie debuted with an estimated $36 million dollars. That was good enough for first place, but short of early expectations.

Toy Story 5 finished in second place, earning another $31 million or so. It has now topped three-quarters of a billion dollars globally.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: We’ll have a look at the last of the big recent Supreme Court decisions on Legal Docket. And later, rediscovering a founding father on the World History Book.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 6th day of July, 2026. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST:  And I’m Mary Reichard. Time now for Legal Docket.

The Supreme Court has closed the books on another term.

Dozens of cases. The questions involving presidential power, immigration, religious liberty, free speech, and the reach of government.

The answers left the justices divided—sometimes sharply.

But step back from the individual wins and losses, and a definite pattern comes into view.

Whether you agreed with the outcomes or not, again and again, it was clear the Court had gone back to first principles: What do the words of the Constitution actually mean?

Two opinions the court handed down on the final day bring that question into sharp focus.

EICHER:  First was birthright citizenship.

President Trump sought to end automatic citizenship given to children born in the U.S. to temporary visitors and migrants in the country illegally. So he issued a sweeping executive order to that effect.

The Court struck it down.

Five justices said the executive order violated the Constitution. A sixth—Justice Brett Kavanaugh—said it violated federal law.

That distinction matters.

The constitutional ruling largely takes the question out of the hands of Congress.

If it stands, changing birthright citizenship would likely require changing the Constitution itself.

REICHARD: So the executive order was struck down 6 to 3. But on the meaning of the constitutional question, the Court split by a single vote of 5 to 4.

At the center of the constitutional fight were six words in the Fourteenth Amendment:

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

To break down the disagreement over those words, I spoke with Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

SWEARER: What this case comes down to is a difference in opinions about what the original meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. So you have the majority in this case … Their view is that we adopted as a nation the old English common law view of jurisdiction and allegiance, which is basically if you were born here and you weren’t, say, like the child of a diplomat or the child of an invading army, that you by virtue of that birth owed natural allegiance to the sovereign who owed you protection in return.

Under that reading, illegal aliens are still subject to American jurisdiction.

They can be arrested. Sued. Taxed.

But the dissenters read the history differently.

SWEARER: The view of the Trump administration—and full disclosure, the view that I think is historically correct here—is that the subjection in the jurisdiction that they’re talking about is actually more significant. It’s not just, “Can we prosecute you for laws that you violate?” But it’s talking about a deeper tie of allegiance and a political jurisdiction … that it had a deeper, more profound meaning than just, well, were you here and did you have to obey our laws? It’s talking about a political and complete jurisdiction.

So both sides went back to the original meaning of the same six words. And arrived at opposite answers.

What surprised Swearer was just how much the legal debate has moved—and how quickly.

SWEARER: When it comes down to it, it was five- four on the constitutional question of what the Fourteenth Amendment actually means. And I think if you asked many people even just eighteen months ago, they would have said it would have been closer to nine- zero. And I think that's a testament to the strength of the historical arguments that the Trump administration put forward and a lot of the scholarship that had been done…even in just the last year or two on this issue.

EICHER: In other words, the executive order lost.

But an argument many legal scholars once considered nearly settled produced a bare one-vote constitutional majority.

And Swearer thinks the four dissenters may have laid the groundwork for a future majority.

SWEARER: The dissenting opinions ….did such a good and compelling job of presenting that historical evidence about what that phrase meant….to the generation that drafted it. I think going forward, you're actually going to see that dissenting opinion morph into a majority understanding…. I see this being the silver lining that going forward these dissenting opinions continue to change minds in the legal field.

Her colleague at Advancing American Freedom Hans von Spakovsky points to one exception in the majority’s own reasoning that helps explain why that debate may not be over.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion and he says that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. But then of course he makes an exception for the children of diplomats, even though there's no such exception in the law…. 5:05 What they're talking about is territorial jurisdiction. In other words…if a German tourist comes to the United States for a two-week visit, obviously he's subject to our territorial jurisdiction. If he robs a bank, he can be criminally prosecuted. What that term meant in the 14th Amendment, according to the sponsors of it, “being subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant you owed your political allegiance to the United States.

And Von Spakovsky points to a historical irony in the majority’s reliance on English common law.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Alito points out that it's quite ironic that as we're celebrating the 250th anniversary of our declaration of independence from Britain, that Justice Roberts says that we've adopted what the British rule was on citizenship, which even they've abandoned.

Justice Clarence Thomas cited one of the Senate sponsors of the Fourteenth Amendment who explicitly said the clause would not apply to “temporary sojourners.”

REICHARD: Now to the First Amendment—and a question on which the Court’s conservative majority did agree: Can the government limit what a political party spends to help its own candidates? 

In National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission, the Court said no.

In a 6-3 decision, the court overruled a precedent from 2001.

EICHER: The decision said restricting what a political party can spend in direct coordination with its own candidates burdens political speech.Von Spakovsky is a former Federal Election Commissioner, who understands the mechanics of the various lawsuits.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all sued saying, "look, this limit on coordinated expenditures is a violation of not only the First Amendment, but also our associational rights under the Fourteenth Amendment... And you should overturn your 2001 decision that upheld it.”

And what the Supreme Court did…is to say: you're right. Limiting coordinated expenses is a violation of the Constitution because the whole purpose of political parties is what? To recruit, find, and support their candidates. And by limiting that, you are limiting their political speech. Because….it takes money to talk. If you want to run an ad, you want to rent a hotel room, a hotel ballroom to speak, that costs money.

The government argued the limits guard against corruption.

The majority demanded evidence that the restriction was actually necessary.

And the dissenters saw a danger the majority did not.

They argued sophisticated donors could find ways around rules against earmarking campaign money.

But Von Spakovsky says there’s just one little problem with that argument: the lack of evidence.

VON SPAKOVSKY: She neglects to mention that I think it's almost thirty states have no contribution limits in their state elections. And when this case went to trial, the Federal Election Commission's expert, who was the defendant in the case, couldn't cite a single example of that type of corruption…as having ever occurred in any of those states or in the federal election process. Not a single example. So she's just speculating, and you don't violate the First Amendment based on speculation.

REICHARD: That gets to the heart of the majority’s reasoning.

Government may have an interest in preventing corruption. But when it restricts political speech, the Court wants more than a prediction of what might go wrong.

The majority also noted that campaign finance is far more transparent today than it was when Congress first put these restrictions in place.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Why? Because of modern technology and the internet. You can go to the website of the Federal Election Commission, where I used to be a commissioner. You can look up any political party, any candidate, and immediately get who has given them money. When these disclosure requirements were first passed, you couldn't do that. You actually had to go physically to the office to the FEC in Washington to look that up.

EICHER: So in this case, the Court put the burden on government to justify restricting speech—not on political parties to prove the restriction unnecessary.

And taken together, these two cases help explain something both Swearer and von Spakovsky noticed about the term just ended.

VON SPAKOVSKY: In the past, they were more amenable to allowing all kinds of government restrictions on First Amendment rights. They've really changed that to have very strict scrutiny of anything done by the government that's going to restrict not only your ability to speak, but your associational rights...

REICHARD: He sees another correction in immigration law.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They really slapped down hard lower court judges in the immigration area…..the court simply held that federal immigration statutes say exactly what they say, and give the president the authority to enforce them.

Swearer sees an even broader pattern.

The justices may disagree over what the Constitution means.

But increasingly, she says, they are arguing over the meaning of the text—not simply the result they prefer.

SWEARER: To the extent that this court, even when the originalists disagree amongst themselves, which sometimes happens, you see this court as a whole continuing to insist that its job as judges….is to analyze what these texts meant to the the people who passed them….not what they wish it to be….And I think that's a good thing.

And for Swearer, that changes how she measures wins and losses at the Court.

SWEARER: I think on the whole, the American people won, though sometimes in specific cases they didn't always win. You know, you look at the birthright citizenship case, you look at the mail-in ballots case, for example. I think the court got that wrong and the American people are worse off for it. But the American people win when the court continues to do to the best of its ability originalist analysis—that is tying its job back to understanding what the law actually is and what it meant to the people who passed it. What those words meant at the time they were passed.

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 ECHER, HOST: It’s time now to talk business, markets, and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bahnsen Group, and he is here now. Good morning to you.

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

EICHER: David, with the holiday weekend behind us, we are officially into the second half of 2026.

Before the break, you went back and graded—not exactly your predictions, but the big economic trends you identified at the beginning of the year. And as you looked back over the first six months—the markets, AI, jobs, the broader economy—what stood out to you most?

BAHNSEN: Well, when you look at the two biggest areas, the AI impact and the tug of war within the economy, as far as just data points competing, as to whether or not we’re moving forward or whether or not we’re stuck in the mud in the economy, those things really have been the two biggest themes so far this year.

And I say that with a war having broken out at the beginning of March, and at one point oil prices spiking over 100 and then doing a round trip back. And I don’t think that people would have necessarily predicted it would play out this way.

I think it’s funny sometimes how this goes, that I’ve been on this theme for a little while, that the labor markets were incrementally encouraging me and looking a little bit.

And literally, Nick, last week, as I was writing on Thursday, which was two days after the job openings, the JOLTS data had come out, the day after the ADP private sector number came out, on Thursday, before we got ready for the holiday weekend, we got one of those infamous jobs reports where not only was it about half of what was expected, but it went back and revised the good news from the last month or so down. Not altogether, but tens of thousands of jobs less than had previously been reported.

And so it’s incredibly frustrating right now. I continue to hold on to the weekly jobless claims as the best data point we have. But as we sit here at the midyear point, I don’t think the economy is doing great, and I most certainly don’t think the economy is doing terrible.

I think it is in a middle-ground, muddle-through moment. And as it pertains to investors, there’s a lot of crazy stuff going on, and then a lot of things that have been crazy that markets are starting to look at as crazy.

EICHER: Well, the jobs report surprised me—and then the downward revisions. You look at the unemployment rate dropping, but for the wrong reason: people leaving the labor force.

So here we go again on the labor-force participation rate.

BAHNSEN: Brutal.

EICHER: You and I have talked again and again over the years about this. And now it’s back down to 61-and-a-half percent—the lowest since March of 2021, when we were still talking about the COVID malaise and people simply not working.

A disappointing month for jobs is one thing. But able-bodied people choosing not to work—that’s a deeper problem, isn’t it?

BAHNSEN: Well, the labor force doesn’t really speak to the jobs picture, and that might seem kind of ironic to people, but it speaks to the people picture.

The unemployment rate is telling you how many people that want a job and can’t find one. The labor participation rate is telling you how many people don’t want a job.

And you can look at it in two different ways. But economically, it doesn’t speak to the economy not producing enough opportunity when there are jobs available and people don’t want them.

The labor participation rate is back to the COVID number, but it most certainly looks to me to be headed lower than that. And I would suggest that it’s 61.5 percent. This isn’t a month-over-month kind of situation. The trend line goes back to financial crisis.

And in all those years post-crisis, as it dipped from basically 67, 68 percent and got down to 63, then it dipped into the 61s during COVID. It did come back up a bit, but now we’re back here at 61, 61 and a half.

There is always a portion of that that’s addressable by perfectly understandable decisions. There’s retired people that don’t work, that are able-bodied. There’s a lot of single-income homes with more traditional family structures. There are things like that.

But what we’re talking about here, Nick, and you and I talked about this so many times over the years, but people can’t stop talking about it, is that there is a kind of trend that we’ve had in place that is broken, multiyear broken. And what is broken, it is able-bodied prime-working-age men that are choosing not to work. Millions.

EICHER: David, let’s turn to trade now.

The Trump administration declined this week to renew the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. This is the deal President Trump himself negotiated in his first term to replace NAFTA—the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Nothing expires now. But with the United States the lone holdout, we're into annual reviews and, as I understand it, a 10-year clock toward expiration.

Here's what I don’t understand: The administration says it wants companies to move supply chains out of Asia and into North America. But if the rules for North American trade are constantly up for negotiation, why would a company make that move?

BAHNSEN: They wouldn’t, and they won’t.

And I think that this is a negotiating tactic for the president, but I don’t know what it is he’s negotiating for. But I think that he feels that by hanging it over Mexico and Canada, he’ll end up getting some better headline announcements out of it.

But I think you’re right that the overall impact will be to disincentivize people that are utilizing Asian supply chains from utilizing North American. And of course the clock is not in the president’s favor, because Mexico and China know that he has two years left in his term.

So I don’t think that there’s a lot of leverage embedded there. But I also think that they’re just going to continue with mostly status quo, which is why I don’t think there’s a big impact out of saying we’re going to let this go year by year.

For the most part, I think that it’s just going to end up continuing to be business as usual. It’s been a while since any trade threats have gotten any headline or response at all. This is one area where you might say that the hand got overplayed.

EICHER: And then, David, one other newsworthy item.

President Trump’s financial disclosure came out last week—almost 1,000 pages. Obviously, President Trump was rich before he became a politician.

But I read a Wall Street Journal editorial late last week that made the point that the problem isn't wealth, of course. It’s profiting from the presidency.

So how do you draw the line on this? When does legitimate private wealth become a conflict of interest? Do you see a problem here?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, Nick, I see a major problem. But I’m going to just pretend for a second that none of it’s President Trump, that it could be a Republican, it could be a Democrat, it could be a president that one loves or one hates or is in the middle.

The question is not so much the wealth itself. As you point out, President Trump was wealthy before he came in. He was most certainly not this wealthy or this liquid, but he was a wealthy person.

But no, the issue is, to me, in this is, A, it’s just not necessary.

Avoid the distrust in the public it creates, and avoid the appearance, and just force them to buy-and-hold index fund or buy-and-hold a bond fund or something along those lines.

But thousands of trades with very niche companies specific to deals being done, doesn’t really matter, it looks awful.

But the far bigger issue is with foreign governments, the crypto-related matters with foreign governments.

I think that we really want, not just for this president, but for any future president, an avoidance of appearance of conflict. And having special deals of people that end up getting pardoned and things like that, some of it may very well be not above board.

But even the stuff, if someone could say, no, I think it is, it doesn’t look like it is. And aren’t we living in a moment where we need as much trust in public institutions as possible?

So I feel like this is just a really unfortunate development, and it’s an unforced error. And I would add, politically, it’s not going to go away. It’s going to get far worse. In a 50-50 country, on the margin, moving 1, 2, 3 percent, that changes elections.

EICHER: All right. David Bahnsen—founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. He writes at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions. David, hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: 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 on the WORLD History Book: a doctor who shaped American independence.

Americans are familiar with the most beloved characters in the story of the Revolution: like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin. But one man played an equal role in the founding, and managed to stay out of the spotlight.

WORLD’s Emma Eicher has the story.

EMMA EICHER: Historian Joseph Loconte has spent a lot of time studying the American Revolution. And he says there’s a forgotten founder he thinks every American should know.

JOSEPH LOCONTE: He's a chief surgeon in Washington's Continental Army, he signed the Declaration of Independence, he was a pioneer in the field of psychiatry, he was a strong advocate for women's education.

This year, Loconte produced a documentary called Benjamin Rush: The Revolution’s Indispensable Doctor. He says Rush played a pivotal role in American independence and the Revolutionary War.

LOCONTE: Dr. Benjamin Rush is the most important founding father that most Americans have never heard of.

There isn’t a simple answer for why historians have largely left him out of the story. Loconte says it could be because many historians are uncomfortable with his apparent Christian faith.

LOCONTE: We don't know what to do with characters who are so obviously religious, who are so deeply committed to the Christian story, as Benjamin Rush was.

Rush was born in 1746, in Pennsylvania. After earning his medical degree in 1768, he began his own practice in Philadelphia. That’s where he would go on to build strong friendships with prominent men.

Rush joined social circles of statesmen and philosophers, like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. He had lunch with George Washington and his wife. And beginning in 1773, Rush was part of regular coffee shop conversations about revolution.

At a book shop, he met a British expatriate who was sympathetic to the American cause.

LOCONTE: The guy turns out to be Thomas Paine.

Rush encouraged Paine to write a pamphlet arguing for independence from Britain.

LOCONTE: Benjamin Rush becomes kind of his muse and gives it its famous title, Common Sense.

Rush served in the Continental Army as surgeon general during the war. And he wrote recommendations for keeping soldiers healthy and free from disease.

LOCONTE: It's everything from keeping your tent clear, taking regular baths, cutting your hair short, all of that is pretty radical stuff for the 1770s and George Washington will put into practice many of Rush’s recommendations. We can only guess at how many men lived to fight another day, thanks to Benjamin Rush.

But Rush was incensed by the corruption he saw in the army hospitals—like embezzlement and war profiteering and that caused him to clash with his superiors. Then, unsanitary conditions and supply shortages led him to write an outraged, unsigned letter to Governor Patrick Henry in Virginia. George Washington called it disloyalty, and Rush resigned from service.

Afterwards, Rush channeled his expertise into a second kind of revolutionary undertaking: improving medicine and patient care. When he returned to Philadelphia, he witnessed a disturbing scene at the city hospital.

LOCONTE: He goes into the basement of the Philadelphia hospital, and he sees the mentally ill treated as just these insane, dangerous characters chained in the basement, and it stirs this kind of righteous indignation.

Rush wrote the first textbook for mental disease and published it in 1812. He pioneered theories about how mental illness developed and gave practical solutions. He advocated for exercise, good food, and clean environments as part of humane treatment.

Rush was later celebrated as the Father of American Psychiatry.

LOCONTE: Rush is really, really developing the idea that there can be these physical causes for mental illness. It's not just some product of sinful behavior, as many might have thought.

He was also an abolitionist. He later became the president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, which helped free many slaves in the state.

Loconte says Rush’s greatest attributes were resilience and his ability to see the image of God in everyone.

LOCONTE: He's not a compassionate, visionary, sacrificial doctor, physician, patriot, in spite of his Christian faith, but because of his Christian faith.

Although Rush’s story is less well-known, Loconte points out the lesson there.

LOCONTE: He is genuinely not seeking glory and acclaim for himself. He's not worried about his legacy. He's concerned about living for the audience of one, meaning his Lord.

Rush spent the rest of his life in and out of politics. Eventually he gained recognition both in America and abroad for his written contributions to the medical field. He died in 1813 after contracting a fever, leaving behind his wife, children, and a quiet but enduring legacy.

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Tomorrow: The theological divide among Methodists grows wider. The United Methodist Church cuts ties with a leading conservative seminary. We’ll have a report. 

And, a bison farmer’s take on how his work preserves American history. 

That and more tomorrow. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

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 … “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.”  —1 Corinthians 10.:13

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.