The World and Everything in It — March 15, 2021

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court considers a case of hot pursuit by police into a man’s garage. Is that always an exception to getting a warrant?

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat: a reflection on one year of Covid and the economic effects.

Plus the WORLD History Book. Today, the 100th birthday of an American restaurant pioneer.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 15th. 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 time for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: FEMA to assist with unaccompanied minors at border » The Biden administration is turning to FEMA for help managing record numbers of unaccompanied minors now streaming across the southern border. 

FEMA will help to shelter and transfer minor children who arrive without a parent or guardian. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told ABC’s This Week… 

PELOSI: I’m so pleased that the president as a temporary measure has sent FEMA to the border in order to help facilitate the children…

While the administration is deploying the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Democrats say the situation is not an emergency, calling it instead a “humanitarian challenge. 

But Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy says the situation is increasingly dire. He noted that apprehensions are up more than 170 percent from the same time last year. 

CASSIDY: The fact that they’re sending FEMA tells us that the 170 percent they anticipate growing to 350 percent or even a higher number. They’re sending FEMA as reinforcements, not for today, not for tomorrow, but for three weeks from now. 

He said the administration is sending Spanish language messages trying to convince Central American migrants not to come to the border right now, but he said President Biden’s policies are sending the opposite message. 

Democratic Senator Chris Coons said he does not think it’s fair to blame the Biden administration, but some changes are needed. 

COONS: Let’s restart the program that allows for kids to apply for asylum in their home country in places like Honduras and Guatemala instead of waiting until they get here. There are things we can do to solve for this, but it’s not simply the policies of any administration that creates these crises.

Since taking office, President Biden has ended the Trump-era practice of expelling immigrant children who cross the border alone. 

Secretaries Blinken, Austin lead first Cabinet-level trip abroad » Secretary of State Tony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin are leading the Biden administration’s first Cabinet-level trip overseas. They’re flying to Asia today for four days of talks in Japan and South Korea. 

Threats from China will loom large during talks with U.S. allies in the region. Blinken told reporters earlier this month… 

BLINKEN: The challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to challenge the stable and open international system.

Blinken will not visit China this trip, but he and national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, plan to meet with Chinese officials in Alaska on Thursday.

The secretaries and U.S. allies will also discuss strategy on containing North Korea. 

U.S. officials have tried to reach out to Pyongyang through multiple channels since last month, but have reportedly received no response.

Pressure mounts on Cuomo to resign » Pressure continues to mount on N.Y. Gov. Andrew Cuomo to resign following another new allegation of sexual misconduct last week. And many fellow Democrats are among those saying Cuomo must go, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

DE BLASIO: The governor and his team have been trying to cover up the truth. I mean, we’ve gotten report after report of purposeful efforts to cover up the facts that the public deserves. 

New York Sen. Kirsten Gilibrand and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who also represents New York, also wrote a joint statement urging him to resign. 

But Cuomo had this to say about the growing number of elected officials urging him to resign: 

CUOMO: Politicians who don’t know a single fact, but yet form a conclusion and an opinion are in my opinion reckless and dangerous. 

The governor insists he has no intention of stepping down.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler dies » Boxing great Marvelous Marvin Hagler died over the weekend at the age 66. 

The middleweight recorded 52 knockouts in 67 fights. His 1985 victory over Thomas Hearns in three rounds is one of boxing’s most famous fights. 

AUDIO: Hearns in deep trouble again. Hearns is down! Hearns is down in the 3rd round and on his back!

And his 1987 split-decision loss to Sugar Ray Leonard is one of the most controversial. Hagler retired from boxing after that fight. 

He finished his 14-year career with a record of 62-3-2. He was a member of the International Boxing Hall of Fame and World Boxing Hall of Fame.

Swift, Beyonce win big at Grammys » Pop superstars Taylor Swift and Beyonce cleaned up at the 63rd annual Grammy Awards last night.  

Swift became the first woman to win album of the year three times, this time for her 2020 album Folklore.  

And Beyonce picked up multiple awards. With 28 Grammys, she is now the most decorated female act in Grammy history. 

R&B artist H.E.R. won Song of the Year honors for “I Can’t Breathe.” 

MUSIC: [I can’t Breathe]

And Best Contemporary Christian Song went to Zach Williams & Dolly Parton for “There was Jesus.” 

MUSIC: [There Was Jesus]

This year’s ceremony at the Los Angeles Convention Center had a very different feel with socially distanced performances and no live crowd.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: A hot pursuit by police lands in the Supreme Court.

Plus, cows in Georgia celebrate an important birthday.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning and here we are for another week of The World and Everything in It. It’s March 15th, 2021 and we’re so glad to have you along today.  Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court handed victory to a young man whose college violated his right to free speech. 

Chike Uzuegbunum had to obtain a permit to speak in Georgia Gwinnett College’s free speech zone. Still, some people complained about him sharing his Christian faith even in that zone. So the college again shut him down.  

It wasn’t until Uzuegbunam sued that the college changed its policy to comport with the First Amendment. 

By the time his case reached the Supreme Court, the question was whether that late change in policy made his case moot.  The offending policy was gone, and all Uzuegbunum asked for now were nominal damages.

REICHARD: By a vote of 8-1, the justices decided the case is not moot. 

Here’s what his lawyer Kristen Waggoner said after the ruling came in:

WAGGONER: It would have been nice if that had been the policy all the way along and he hadn’t had to go to the court. But the court affirmed, that the government officials should be accountable when they violate someone’s rights because those violations cause real harm, even if you can’t put a dollar amount on that harm.

EICHER: Uzuegbunum may now continue his quest for justice in lower court. 

Interestingly, this is the first time Chief Justice John Roberts is the lone dissenter in any case since he took the high court bench. His main concern was this could open up the courts to a flood of litigation.

REICHARD: Or maybe not. If First Freedoms have the support of Clarence Thomas on one hand and Sonia Sotomayor on the other? Maybe first amendment violators will think twice.

Now onto coverage of an oral argument the court heard in February. A major search-and-seizure case. 

The Fourth Amendment gives we the people the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. It guarantees that right shall not be violated except upon probable cause with a warrant.

Carve-outs to this include “exigent circumstances.” And that’s a key term. For example, an exigent circumstance might be when an officer pursues an armed robber who runs into a home. In a case like that, police need not obtain a warrant when in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect.

The question is what do “exigent circumstances” include?

EICHER: Here are the facts. In 2016, Arthur Lange was driving home. He had the music up loud and was honking his horn. Eventually, he’d pass by a California highway patrolman. 

Turns out, excessive noise is a misdemeanor in California, for which the punishment is a fine. 

So the officer followed Lange for a while, before deciding to flash his lights to signal Lange to pull over.

Lange would later say he didn’t see the lights and was nearly home anyway, so he turned into his driveway, drove into his garage, and pressed the button to close the garage door. 

The officer got out of his car, hurried up to the garage door, and placed his foot under the door to trigger the sensor and make it reopen.

That’s when he encountered Lange and noticed tell-tale signs of intoxication: bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and alcohol on the breath.

REICHARD: A blood test showed Lange’s blood alcohol content to be three times the legal limit. A court convicted him of driving under the influence, but that’s still only a misdemeanor in that jurisdiction.

Lange seeks to overturn that conviction. He says the sobriety test evidence obtained by the officer violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. He’d only committed a misdemeanor and nobody was in immediate danger. So he says, this was no “exigent circumstance” to justify warrantless entry into his home. 

But the officer argues this is a case of hot pursuit, and that makes it an exigent circumstance. 

Lange’s lawyer argued against making every single case of “hot pursuit” count as an exigent circumstance. There are lots of reasons why people might continue into their garages when pursued by police. Here’s Jeffrey Fisher:

LANGE: Teenagers are sometimes frightened or confused and wish their parents to be present for any questioning. Women driving alone are sometimes afraid to stop on dark roads and occasionally are not even sure those following them are police officers. And residents of certain communities often wish to avoid having others see them interacting with the police, particularly when they’re likely to be asked to identify perpetrators of other more serious offenses.

Here, the officer could have taken some time to get a warrant or just knocked on the door. 

Chief Justice John Roberts saw problems with that.

ROBERTS: I would expect that would be a terribly dangerous situation. The one thing you know is that the person inside is trying to get away from you, and, you know, if you go right up to the door and knock, there’s no reason you shouldn’t be concerned that he might swing the door open and have a gun. And the alternative you suggest about, well, just, you can go get a warrant, but you still don’t have any idea how long that’s going to take, and during that time, you know, the person in the house can also destroy evidence or, again, arm himself.

Fisher acknowledged some danger exists. But a categorical rule saying every fact situation gets swept into the “hot-pursuit” exception is just too broad. Better to slow down and put the intent of the Fourth Amendment first. That is, to keep us safe and secure from government intrusion into our own homes. 

On the other side in support of the officer’s warrantless entry into Lange’s home was lawyer Amanda Rice. She argued the best way forward is for the court to make a bright-line rule for officers to follow. Note that I’ve edited the audio for flow.

RICE: In this case, Office Weikert’s split-second decision to stop the garage door from closing was a reasonable minimal intrusion that almost certainly prevented Petitioner from getting away with drunk driving by refusing to heed the officer’s lawful order to stop. In the end, the categorical hot-pursuit rule does nothing more and nothing less than prevent suspects from grafting the protections of the home onto lawful public encounters by engaging in wrongful conduct.

But Justice Samuel Alito saw the video of what lawyer Rice was calling hot pursuit. He wasn’t persuaded.

ALITO: Well, I will tell you, looking at this video, I see no attempts to avoid arrest. I see somebody who may well have not have even noticed these lights and simply proceeded into his own garage.

Again, Fisher, lawyer for the aggrieved driver, wants the Supreme Court to draw a different bright line: when the underlying conduct is only a misdemeanor, police should not be allowed to get around the warrant requirement simply by chasing the suspect into his home. 

He points to Supreme Court precedent that allows for that only when in pursuit of a suspected felon. 

Listen to Justice Stephen Breyer address Rice regarding his worries about silly laws and overreaching prosecutors. 

BREYER: Well, I mean, this is  a tough case. If we  take your view, then it seems like the home isn’t the castle at all for the most trivial of things. I mean, many examples — I like the rabbit example. I don’t know why California has made it a crime to give a rabbit as a lottery prize or something. But, I mean, it seems ridiculous and your home isn’t your castle for terribly minor things.

RICE: I agree that that sounds like a pretty silly law…

BREYER: Yeah, but I mean we can think of about fifty of those when we start getting into misdemeanors.

Justice Breyer also pointed out the problem of different states having different rules about what counts as a misdemeanor or a felony. Listen to this exchange with Deputy Solicitor General of California, Samuel Harbourt:

BREYER: So, in Massachusetts, if, in fact, he’s beaten up into a bloody pulp four people, you cannot just automatically hotly pursue him into the house, but, in California, you can because it’s a felony, or what? I mean, they’ll be all over the place. We’ll have — I  mean, that’s what I don’t see how to draw this line, misdemeanor, felony. And you don’t in California. What you, in fact, have been saying is the hot-pursuit rule also allows pursuit into the home if it’s jailable, which, by the way, picks up auctioning off a rabbit as a prize, which carries a jail term.

HARBOURT: Your Honor, I think the  Court could avoid those — those consequences …

Harbourt answered that a lot of states define misdemeanor as an offense authorizing up to a year of incarceration, so why not use that? 

But one of the former prosecutors on the Supreme Court saw potential nonsense in that. Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether level of violence might be the better way to analyze the hot-pursuit exception to obtaining a warrant.

KAGAN: Most domestic violence laws continue to be misdemeanors. And then on the other hand, most white-collar fraud offenses are felonies. That doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense with respect to when you’d allow intrusions into the home and when not.

Clarity on this matter is sorely needed. The circuits disagree on whether hot pursuit includes misdemeanors.

Indeed, one amicus brief made the point misdemeanors make up three of every four criminal charges. Nonviolent offenses that range from defacing currency to the example Justice Breyer gave: auctioning rabbits in California.

It seems appropriate to end by quoting from Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in a 1949 case called Brinegar v United States. Justice Jackson had once been a chief prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, and so he’d thought a lot about the power of the government over the individual.

“Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.  Fourth Amendment freedoms … are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms.”

The importance of what the Supreme Court decides here affects us all. And sometimes the facts of a particular case make it very difficult to draw bright lines.

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: Joining us now is David Bahnsen, battling through a wicked sore throat—a case of strep—which will be immediately evident. David, how are you?

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Well, I’m doing great. And, Nick, I wanted to say, Happy Anniversary. I don’t know if you knew this or not, but it was one year ago today that we began doing these each and every week.

EICHER: Right, I do know that and back at you: You’re the one who does the heavy lifting each week.

I’ll say at the same time, I regret the circumstance that brought us to this regular get-together, I’m grateful we’ve been able to have it and continue to have it. I’ve learned a lot over the last year and have received many emails expressing the same kind of appreciation. So thank you, David.

You know, I’d planned to start with a conversation about the anniversary that prompted this anniversary, which is the day last week that we marked one year ago, when the awful Covid virus came to our shores and claimed so many lives and created circumstances that did so much economic harm to our people. Let’s just start there.

What are your reflections one year on?

BAHNSEN: Well, really it’s surreal to reflect back on it. One year ago today, you and I recorded the first of these interviews. I was in my New York office and shortly after recording with you, I began walking back to my apartment and midtown Manhattan was empty. And as I rounded Columbus Circle, getting close to my apartment, there was nobody there. The park looked pretty empty and I called my wife and I said, you know, our kids are going to be on spring break for a couple weeks from school. I said, let’s go back to California and let things settle for a couple weeks. 

And I think that was the mentality that a lot of people had, that everything was pretty bad but it was going to be maybe a couple weeks. 

The idea that so much of what happened lasted this full year is really just an unbelievable story in American history. Some of it tragic, some of it probably unnecessary, but all of it something to learn from. 

Interestingly, from my vantage point as a financial guy, the stock market story only lasted about a month. Less than that, even. The market ended up bottoming out on March the 23rd, and has been making new highs for the last several months. And we still have parts of our economy not reopened. We have a president this week talking about not even having large events by Fourth of July this year.  The way in which the medical component allowed for greater state intrusion into the economy that other environmental efforts have ever been able to than other economic interjections. The medicalization of certain things in the relationship between the state and citizenry has really been a sight to behold.

EICHER: So let’s talk about what we’ve learned. Start culturally—culture drives politics—and we can say drives political decision-making. I’ll turn us to economics, but let’s start with culture. What’s your biggest takeaway from the Covid year?

BAHNSEN: Well, one of the things that I learned and that I believe would be the case again is that this was yet another reflection. It didn’t cause this division, but it revealed this division that even in a matter of a global health pandemic, the country has an incredible tribalization at play:  where there was almost somewhat binary and even kind of simplistic breakdown as to how people responded. And I don’t think that’s healthy. 

If there was anything you would think would sort of break out of a kind of red state-blue state divide, a CNN-Fox News divide, it would be matters of public health. But actually this really kind of fed that divide. And I think that that was something that surprised me. 9/11 was not a particularly political event in the way the country responded. But for the most part it really was a pretty unifying event in terms of a kind of monolithic outrage at the act of terror that was perpetrated upon the United States. 

This didn’t have any kind of monolithic response. It became very cultural that there was this kind of difference in how people responded. Some of it understandable, most of it not. But I think that we live in difficult times as a country and I think that in a time of crisis it can either reveal and make those things worse, exacerbate those problems—as has been the case here—or sometimes it can be unifying. And, unfortunately, this was not one of those unifying moments.

EICHER: Let’s zoom in on economic policy, then. Do we have enough information to evaluate how we did with the policy response?

BAHNSEN: It’s too early to tell, Nick. History is going to have to give the policy makers some indication of what they end up believing they did well and believing they did poorly. The instinct to go use debt financing for fiscal solutions has been embedded in our policy response for many decades. This just happened to have more zeroes and commas than we really ever thought possible. 

I fear what history will do is view all of it as one pot together, instead of in the weeds of the differences. Meaning, the PPP provisions in the CARES Act should be taken on their own merits and looked at for the good and the bad that came out of that. And the direct payments to taxpayers a year after the pandemic right now with 6 percent unemployment should be taken on its own merits. The third stimulus bill and direct payments to people who have not lost jobs is a very different part of this $5 trillion of spending than the PPP provisions were for businesses that the government themselves shut down.

One of the things that’s going to be unfortunate is it’s all going to be dealt with as sort of one policy response instead of break out what the good and bad of the policy responses were.

EICHER: Before we go today, David, and I appreciate your soldiering through here. Tell me the good and the bad of President Biden’s big prime-time speech on the Covid anniversary.

BAHNSEN: You know, I don’t know how many of the listeners know me well enough to know that this is true about me, but I don’t have any problem giving credit where credit’s due, even to people on the other side of the political aisle. In this particular case, I was very disappointed with the speech and I’m not being a partisan hack to say that. There’s much of the tone of his speech that I can appreciate. But I don’t understand, for the life of me, why they can’t really, really sell the re-normalization aspect of what’s going on. There is just simply no reason to continue holding a sort of threat over future constrained activity in the aftermath of vaccination success. If they want to continue the vaccination momentum and get to the point of herd immunity where we get our lives back, there’s no reason to still say things like, “Oh, but you’re still going to have to wear a mask and you’re only going to be able to have 10 people at a cookout on Fourth of July.” It’s not just that I vehemently disagree with it and find it repugnant, I don’t understand why they’re doing it politically or ideologically. So, I was disappointed in that. I think what the American people want to hear is the truth, and the truth is we’re getting very, very close to the point of herd immunity and we can have our lives back. 

Look, I don’t get that into the whole thing about taking credit for stuff and not giving credit to the prior administration. Politicians generally aren’t really in the business of giving each other credit for things and turning down opportunities to take credit for things, so that is what it is. But the truth is that President Biden did broker the deal to get Merck to help distribute the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. I think that’s a coup. And most of the Operation Warp Speed logistics that helped get this vaccine here was from the prior administration. And everybody kind of knows that. So this isn’t really a partisan thing. We have tremendous success that came about because, by the way, the innovations and genius of the biotech industry. That’s why we have these vaccines. And I think we need to have a message that is centered around full blown economic normalization sooner than later.

EICHER: Financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. Great to talk with you. Be well. I hope you get better.

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, March 15th. 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, Italian unification, the self-proclaimed inventor of the chicken sandwich, and the legalization of gambling in Nevada. Here’s senior correspondent Katie Gaultney.

KATIE GAULTNEY, SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Italy brought us geniuses like Galileo and da Vinci, and too many culinary masterpieces to mention. But for its long history of contributions to the world, the Kingdom of Italy only became a nation state on March 17, 1861. 

Professor Eugenio Biagini of the University of Cambridge told the BBC in 2018 what Italy’s leaders settled on: 

BIAGINI: Well, to begin with, it is a constitutional monarchy, it has a parliament consisting of two chambers, a senate appointed by the king, and a chamber of deputies… 

For centuries, Italy had been politically fragmented, with various kingdoms and city states in the region. But in the mid-19th Century, people showed increasing support for Italian unification, a process referred to as the Risorgimento. The kingdoms of Rome and Venetia remained outside the newly unified Italy for another decade.

The unified kingdom was relatively short-lived. But it played an expansive role in modern history, with attempts to colonize parts of the African continent, waging war against the Ottoman Empire, and even enduring its own civil war. The Kingdom of Italy saw Mussolini’s rise to power and became a committed—if fairly lackluster—member of the Allied powers in World War II. 

AUDIO: [World War II battle]

But, the harsh conditions of that conflict contributed to growing resentment of the monarchy, whom the public believed tacitly endorsed Mussolini’s fascism. A constitutional referendum brought an end to the kingdom in 1946. 

SONG: [Chick-fil-A commercial music]

Moving from Italy to the American Southeast. Yesterday would have been the 100th birthday of the self-proclaimed inventor of the chicken sandwich. Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy was born in Eatonton, Georgia, on March 14, 1921. 

CATHY: What does a cow say?/ Moo!/ Who said “moo?” In Georgia, pigs say “moo,” cows say “eat more chicken!”

That’s Cathy addressing a crowd at Dallas Theological Seminary in 2012, with Chick-fil-A’s iconic slogan. Cathy was known for his Southern good manners and Baptist faith. He was just 25, and a recent World War II veteran, when he opened The Dwarf Grill in an Atlanta suburb. That kitchen became the birthplace of his most famous creation, and what would become known as the Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich. Early on, he made the polarizing decision to keep his restaurants closed on Sundays to allow employees family and worship time. He told “The 700 Club” that convictions matter. 

CATHY: Well, that’s the trouble, adults as well as young people, you try to be a people-pleaser to everybody, and you just can’t do that. You have to kinda stick to your convictions—what’s right and what’s wrong—and we try to do that. 

This year, the restaurant he founded back in 1946 turns 75. Under his watch, the chain grew to more than 1,800 locations in 40 states and the District of Columbia. In November 2013, after nearly six decades in the restaurant business, he retired as Chick-fil-A chairman and CEO, leaving those roles to one of his sons, Dan. 

Cathy died in 2014 at the age of 93, leaving a legacy of philanthropy, a wife of more than six decades, and three adult children.

SONG: [“The Chicken Dance,” the Emeralds]

And we’ll end today with a change prompted by The Great Depression: The legalization of gambling in Nevada on March 19, 1931. 

CLIP: I won! Look at this, I won! I won a million dollars!

AUDIO: [Sound of casino]

Advocates lobbied for decades to legalize gambling. The first state legislature tried in 1864, but the measure failed. Instead, lawmakers compromised, lessening penalties for illegal games of chance. 

So when the market crashed in 1929, lawmakers revisited the gambling laws on the books. The state’s economy had taken a nosedive along with the rest of the country. Desperate times led the state to legalize gambling in 1931. Las Vegas, of course, became the casino capital of the state, and while the state’s income saw an uptick, so did organized crime. But it took another decade-plus before the rise of the Las Vegas strip. Author and professor Dr. Michael Green spoke to the Mob Museum about those early sanctioned gambling operations. 

GREEN: … very small operations, a few tables. If there’s any entertainment it’s a guy on a piano in the corner because there isn’t much space. 

Of course, Las Vegas now brings to mind sprawling resorts and elaborate shows. Today, state gambling taxes make up the bulk of Nevada’s overall tax revenues. But of course, for all the economic impact, casinos are fertile ground for societal problems. Multiple studies report casinos get anywhere from 30 to 55 percent of revenues from gambling addicts. 

SONG: [OOH LAS VEGAS BY GRAM PARSONS]

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: The immigration surge at the U.S. southern border. We’ll tell you what’s driving the crisis. And, the effect it’s having on border towns.

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 Lord said to King Solomon: “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

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.