The World and Everything in It - March 9, 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: Good morning!

Drugs and guns—the Supreme Court to decide whether they can legally mix.

GORSUCH: What if he took one gummy bear to help him sleep every other day. Disarm him for life?

NICK EICHER, HOST: Legal Docket is ahead.

Also today, the Monday Moneybea. A week into the war with Iran, we talk economic effects with David Bahnsen.

And the World History Book, how the first telephone kickstarted the technology of today:

SMOLKIN: So Alexander Graham Bell got interested in the idea of, could you somehow send multiple messages at the same time?

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 9th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. 

I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Time now for the news with Mark Mellinger.

MARK MELLINGER, NEWS ANCHOR: 7th U.S. troop dies in Epic Fury » A seventh American service member has died from combat injuries sustained in the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran.

U.S. officials say an Army soldier stationed in Saudi Arabia has died from injuries suffered there during an Iranian attack on March 1st. The first six U.S. combat deaths were Army reservists killed during an attack in Kuwait.

The death toll from what’s known in the U.S. as Operation Epic Fury keeps climbing. Besides at least 1230 deaths in Iran, at least 300 people have been killed in Lebanon, where the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah is trading attacks with Israel. Around a dozen people in Israel have been killed.

Khameini’s son named supreme leader » Meanwhile, Iranian state TV has announced the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's hardliner son Mojtaba Khamenei is succeeding him as Iran’s supreme leader.

The defiant move goes against what President Trump wanted. Trump has called the younger Khamenei a lightweight. The president also wanted a hand in selecting Iran’s new leader, and has said anyone who doesn’t have his personal approval won’t last long.

Trump is demanding an unconditional surrender from Iran, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi says that’s not happening.

ARAGCHI: Well, they have to explain why they started this aggression before we come to the point to even consider a ceasefire.

Aragchi on NBC’s Meet the Press.

Republican Louisiana Senator John Kennedy restated part of the rationale given several times publicly by the Trump administration.

KENNEDY: Iran had taken baby steps to restart its nuclear program… Its plan was to stockpile enough missiles so that it could destroy the Middle East.

Kennedy on Fox News Sunday.

President Trump says Epic Fury will continue until Iran can’t fight anymore.

Israel, with the help of American intelligence, attacked Iran’s oil infrastructure Sunday, while Iran continued strikes on the U.S.’s Middle East allies. The U.S. had ordered all nonessential diplomats and families to leave Saudi Arabia as Iran steps up retaliation there.

Americans evacuated from Middle East » The U.S. State Department says more than 32,000 Americans have successfully evacuated from the Middle East over the past week and are back home.

The State Department says it’s completed close to two dozen charter flights to help with that effort. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace:

MACE: This has not been an easy task. But in seven days, to have evacuated that many Americans is… We’re very grateful for it and grateful for everyone’s hard work on the ground.

Democrats are criticizing the State Department, saying the Trump Administration lacked a plan to evacuate Americans from the Middle East before the strikes on Iran began.

U.S. gas prices up 50 cents in one week » The military operation in Iran has interrupted the global flow of oil, sending energy costs and the price at the gas pump way up in the U.S.

Gas Buddy Head of Petroleum Analysis Pat DeHaan says:

DEHAAN: The national average as we speak here, up to about $3.45 a gallon. That now stands 51 cents higher than we were a week ago, when we stood at $2.94.

He says that’s the fifth-largest weekly increase Gas Buddy has seen, going back to 2000.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright says the spike is temporary. He says it’s based on fears that the conflict in Iran will be a long, drawn-out crisis, which he insists it won’t be.

Counter-protestor throws IED near Mamdani’s home » Competing demonstrations outside New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s home turned dangerous over the weekend.

AUDIO: Tell everyone else… (scream, fade)

That’s what it sounded like as an 18-year-old counter-protestor threw a homemade improvised explosive device, or IED, sending protestors and police scrambling. No one was hurt.

The scene came during a collision of dueling protests: One, an anti-Islam protest led by right wing influencer Jake Lang, the other, a counter-protest to Lang’s. Again, it was one of the counter-protestors who threw the explosive.

New York Police say the IED -one of three suspicious devices they’re now investigating- could have caused injury or death. Both young men under arrest in connection with the IED admit to being inspired by ISIS.

Midwest states recovering from fatal tornadoes » Crews are surveying the damage in Oklahoma and Michigan after tornadoes roared through late last week, killing at least six people and leaving more than a dozen hurt.

Among those killed: Jodie Owens and her 13-year-old daughter Lexi in Major County, Oklahoma. Jodie’s brother Justin Zonts talked to KFOR-TV:

ZONTS: They were amazing people, and anyone who knows them will be devastated by this news… This just feels like a movie. It feels like I’ve watched a movie, and someone... I just, I don’t believe it’s real still.

In Union City, Michigan, where at least four people were killed, it was the most violent tornado this early in the year in Michigan’s history.

I’m Mark Mellinger. 

Straight ahead on Legal Docket: a case involving gun rights and drug use. Plus, more on the effect on oil prices a week into the conflict with Iran. 

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 9th day of March. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. It’s time for Legal Docket.

Today, another case in the Supreme Court’s effort to define the limits of the Second Amendment.

Can the federal government strip someone of the right to a firearm based on regular use of a controlled substance—even when that person is sober and keeps the gun at home for self-defense?

EICHER: That question arises because of a landmark 2022 ruling that reshaped how courts evaluate gun laws: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association versus Bruen.

Under the Bruen decision, the government cannot justify restrictions simply by arguing public safety. It has to show the law fits within the nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms.

That’s the framework the justices are applying in today’s case, U-S versus Hemani. The relevant law is part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. It bars gun possession by a person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The government says the rule is about public safety and whether habitual drug users can be disarmed as a class.

At the Supreme Court government lawyer Sarah Harris:

HARRIS: The Second Amendment does not prohibit the government from temporarily disarming habitual marijuana users while they persist in using frequently. That tailored restriction easily fits within the historical tradition of disarming categories of people who present a special danger of misuse.

REICHARD: But the drug user’s lawyer says that reading is too broad. She argues that the real question is whether someone using marijuana a few times per week can be made into a felon for having a gun secured at home.

The lawyer is Erin Murphy:

MURPHY: …it can't constitutionally be applied to anyone because the statute fails to provide fair notice of what makes someone an unlawful user of a controlled substance who can be stripped of their Second Amendment rights.

Murphy argues the government’s historical comparison is wrong, too. Federal lawyers point to old laws restricting “habitual drunkards.”

But Murphy calls the comparison flawed:

MURPHY: Indeed, the whole point of the doctrine was to distinguish those who consumed alcohol frequently but mostly in moderation from those who so habitually consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication as to impair their ability to function even in whatever moments of sobriety they may have had.

EICHER: Her client is the man at the center of this fight, Ali Danial Hemani. Now, some background on why federal authorities were already paying attention to him.

Hemani grew up around Dallas but is a dual citizen of the US and Pakistan. Hemani’s lawyers describe him as a college graduate and a valued member of his Shi’a Muslim community. Federal authorities searched his phone during a 2019 border crossing and later said it contained communications about possible fraud involving Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. The U.S. has designated the IRGC a terrorist organization and is now engaged in war against it.

REICHARD: The government also notes Hemani traveled to Iran to commemorate Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed in a US drone strike in 2020. Prosecutors point to a video of Hemani’s mother saying she prayed her sons would one day become martyrs like Soleimani.

Interesting as that is—the Supreme Court is not deciding whether Hemani poses a national-security risk.

Using a warrant, the FBI searched Hemani’s home and found a Glock handgun along with cocaine and marijuana. Hemani surrendered the gun and told agents he smoked pot roughly every other day.

EICHER: A federal grand jury charged him with possessing a firearm while being an unlawful user of controlled substances.

And the constitutional question that follows arises because of the Bruen case, a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2022 that reshaped how courts review gun laws.

So the issue now is whether this section of federal gun law violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani.

REICHARD: That Bruen decision said the government cannot justify gun restrictions just by saying they promote public safety.

Now the government must show the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Sounds simple enough. But how close must a modern law be to an older one to count as part of that historical tradition?

Justice Neil Gorsuch:

GORSUCH: The American Temperance Society back in the day said eight shots of whiskey a day only made you an occasional drunkard. (laughter) We have to remember the founding era… . John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn’t much a user of alcohol, he only had three or four glasses of wine a night… Are they all habitual drunkards who would be properly disarmed for life under your theory?

EICHER: The government says that analogy still works. Its lawyer argued that laws historically let authorities to restrain people considered persistently dangerous due to intoxication.

But Hemani’s lawyer called that a mistake. Her client used marijuana every other day or so, but there’s no record of addiction, impairment, or intoxication while he possessed a gun.

Gorsuch seemed aligned with that:

GORSUCH: So we don't even know the quantity of how much he uses every other day. What -- what if he took one gummy bear ….to help him sleep every other day. Disarm him for life?

REICHARD: But the government’s lawyer argued it’s only a temporary restriction.

Hemani could regain his gun rights by stopping his illegal drug use.

But that exchange led some justices to question whether the law actually tracks dangerousness, or mere legality.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett used a different example:

BARRETT: Let's assume that someone takes their spouse's Ambien prescription. The spouse takes it too, lawfully, with the prescription, but then, you know, you take it unlawfully because you break into your spouse’s Ambien jar. What is it about Ambien itself that would make one of us more likely to be dangerous? It's not. It's the lawfulness. And so too here with the marijuana…

EICHER: That makes the government’s theory about danger a lot harder to explain. That led the Court into a discussion of the federal drug-classification system.

Under federal law, controlled substances are divided into schedules based on their medical uses and potential for abuse.

Schedule 1 drugs are considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.

Marijuana is in Schedule 1 under federal law.

REICHARD: Schedule III drugs by contrast have accepted medical uses and less potential for dependence. 

That matters politically, but under the gun law at issue here, it might not matter legally.

That’s because the relevant gun law bars gun possession by unlawful users of any controlled substance, no matter which schedule it’s in.

EICHER: Still, marijuana’s federal status may soon change. President Trump back in December signed an executive order directing the Drug Enforcement Administration to move marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule III.

If that happens, it weakens the government’s argument that marijuana belongs in the same dangerous category as, say, heroin or fentanyl.

Justice Barrett followed up with this to Hemani’s lawyer:

BARRETT: You win this case and Congress… conducts hearings, it hears all this evidence about the concentrations of THC and marijuana that's made today,... and then passes the same statute with findings along the lines I just sketched out. Can Congress do that consistently with the Second Amendment?

MURPHY: So I think you’d have to look at that evidence and decide…

REICHARD: That reference reflects one of the government’s supporting briefs.

The advocacy group Smart Approaches to Marijuana argued that cannabis these days is much more potent than in the past. That increases the risk of psychosis, schizophrenia, and impaired judgment.

So it makes sense for laws to restrict gun possession by regular users.

EICHER: But Hemani’s lawyer said courts still have to ask whether the category Congress targets—marijuana users—aligns with the historical tradition of gun regulation.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a similar concern:

JACKSON: The entire point, I thought, of the Bruen test was to say that the only thing the modern legislature gets to do is follow the judgments of the founding-era legislature around who was dangerous and who gets to be disarmed.

Justice Jackson suggested it’s not enough for Congress to declare today’s pot smokers dangerous. The government has to show that lawmakers in the founding era made a similar judgment about a similar class of people.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried about endless litigation over the dangers of this or that drug if Hemani wins:

ROBERTS: Well, I know your client just wants to prevail, which is understandable, but your argument, it seems to me --I mean, why doesn't it apply to any drug, whether it's PCP, methamphetamine, whatever? It seems that, again, to the extent that you're overriding the judgment of Congress and the executive branch with respect to the listing of particular drugs, I don't know why that --that same approach doesn't apply to any drug.

REICHARD: Justice Samuel Alito raised a similar practical concern. If Hemani prevails, would criminal trials turn into scientific hearings about the dangers of each and every substance?

ALITO: Would experts testify on all of these matters and the jury would decide whether the person met the test for being a dangerous person?

Justice Alito also pointed to a historical wrinkle:

ALITO: The most commonly used illegal drugs either had not been invented at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment or the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Heroin was invented in 1874. Cocaine, 1855. Methamphetamine, 1893. Fentanyl, 1959. Marijuana existed, but my understanding, yeah, hemp was grown for industrial purposes. My understanding is that was not consumed to any degree by people in the US until at least the beginning of the 20th century.

The justices agreed that the Founding generation accepted restrictions on guns while actively intoxicated.

But a harder question is whether that tradition can justify disarming a person based on repeat marijuana use, even when that person is sober.

If Hemani wins, and I think he will, it’ll limit the government’s ability to prosecute gun owners who are pot smokers.

That’ll affect millions of Americans who live in states where cannabis is legal under state law, but still illegal under federal law.

If the government wins, it could disarm anyone who uses a controlled substance “habitually,” even if it’s for medical reasons or in a state where it’s legal.

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: 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, the February jobs report came as a real unhappy surprise. The U.S. economy lost more than 90,000 jobs, and gains in December and January were revised downward as well—so taken together, the labor market suddenly looks quite a bit weaker than economists thought just a month ago.

When you step back, do you see this as a real signal of weakness in the labor market, or just another reminder of how noisy these reports each month can be?

BAHNSEN: Unfortunately, it’s a lot more of the former. I’ll give some qualifiers—there’s a little bit of noise. That might allow for some bounce-back in the March report. But let’s be clear about a few things.

The revisions are almost the worst part, because they take away the story that maybe things were starting to look better in the last couple of months. It was another 60,000 on top of the 90,000. You ended up with about a 161,000 net job decline from this report.

One of the talking points has been that the total jobs number worsened, but it’s mostly government jobs we’re losing and the productive part of the private sector is still doing fine. But this month it was about 86,000 private-sector jobs lost. I think it was only around 6,000 jobs lost in the government sector.

So on almost every point—by the way, manufacturing jobs were down by 12,000. The notion that tariffs are working to bring back manufacturing employment is most certainly not happening. I believe manufacturing jobs have been down every month for the last year.

The total jobs picture was really bad. The unemployment rate ticked up. Labor-force participation ticked down.

Now, you can try to find a little noise in the numbers. There was a nursing strike that I think ended, and if that’s factored in, that might allow for about 20,000 jobs coming back.

There were also seasonal issues with retail because of weather. Even though they try to factor that into the seasonal adjustments, they might not have gotten those fully right. We’ll see if some of the restaurant and bar jobs that were down come back with weather improvement.

But my point is that we have a precarious labor environment, and we haven’t had robust hiring for a long time. The glass-half-full story has been that firings haven’t been big. But now you’re starting to see negative job growth, and that becomes much more concerning.

EICHER: Let me ask about the Federal Reserve, David. The Fed is still holding interest rates in what it calls a restrictive stance. Is the central bank late to the party in bringing rates down toward neutral?

BAHNSEN: I would like to say no, I don’t blame the Fed, because it’s uncomfortable for me to think that interest-rate policy should be the factor driving job growth. But it would probably be economically ignorant to say it isn’t any factor at all.

Any degree of tightening above a neutral rate certainly, on the margin, would be a factor in financial services and real estate. The construction aspect is a big deal because the housing freeze has impacted employment opportunities there.

So it’s harder to measure—that’s why I hesitate. But I’m comfortable trying to be honest and objective that there are some Fed fingerprints here. Based on what I see in small and mid-sized business and in manufacturing, I suspect that tariffs are a factor as well.

EICHER: Let’s turn to the war in Iran. We obviously have more information than we had last week. Oil prices have now moved above $90 a barrel, and the Strait of Hormuz is effectively shut down for shipping. So starting with the oil market—is this roughly what you expected, or has the spike been more severe?

BAHNSEN: The difference is the timing. The fact that oil was only up about five and a half percent the day we last spoke last Monday was significantly less than most people would have expected. It was almost like no impact at all. Then each day it just ticked higher and higher.

This incremental move became meaningful. I gave a speech in Nashville on Thursday night and said oil was up 17 percent on the week. That’s not as bad as it could have been, but it’s not nothing.

By Friday it was up another nine and a half percent, and it got to about 31 percent for the week. At that point, it becomes a real move.

The other issue—and I highlighted this in my DividendCafe.com over the weekend—is something called backwardation, the opposite of contango.

It refers to the pricing of futures contracts at different points in time. When near-term prices are higher than prices further out, that’s backwardation.

Right now, oil futures going out nine months or twelve months are in the $60s, while contracts for the next thirty days are in the $90s.

That’s a significant and dramatic backwardation. It’s a way of saying that markets believe these are temporary supply shocks, largely driven by the problems in the Strait of Hormuz.

There may also be an expectation that things could get much better on the back end. This isn’t a prediction, but you start to wonder whether futures prices reflect the possibility that Iran could end up with leadership the U.S. can work with—allowing sanctions relief.

Iran’s contribution to global oil supply has been very constrained by sanctions. If Iran became a full exporter again, that could push oil prices down quite a bit in the future.

So we have to talk about this right now as a spike in oil prices that will impact costs, while recognizing that we may talk about it very differently on the other side of this depending on how the Iranian leadership situation develops.

EICHER: One thing I’ve been wondering about is the broader shipping picture.

It’s not only the Strait of Hormuz, but also the possibility of Houthi attacks affecting Red Sea shipping—so potentially two global choke points at the same time.

But here’s the part I don’t fully understand.

If Iran is taking the brunt of the military strikes right now, how are they still able to effectively shut down traffic through the Strait of Hormuz?

Why hasn’t the U.S. simply cleared that lane and restored shipping?

BAHNSEN: This isn’t really a military issue—it’s an economic one.

Iran has not literally closed the Strait of Hormuz. There are about 147 cargo ships that have dropped anchor, essentially saying they’re not moving because of drone attacks, which is the capability Iran appears to have.

The fear that something could happen means their safety cannot be secured at this time. From an insurance standpoint, operators are not comfortable moving through the strait.

The large Danish shipping company Maersk closed a couple of routes from the Middle East to both Asia and Europe over the weekend.

This isn’t just an energy story. The cargo shipping and containers impact far more than oil—it affects the shipment of goods generally.

Container and shipping prices did rise this week, though they were coming off very low levels.

But it’s not that Iran has militarily blocked trade. Rather, there’s enough fear that companies operating in the Strait of Hormuz do not want to operate right now.

What the U.S. is looking to do is secure those routes so companies feel safe moving again.

You could see this change pretty quickly. The U.S. has the capacity to resolve some of these issues, and I believe there have been a lot of conversations about how that could be facilitated, even outside the purely military aspects.

EICHER: David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of the Bahnsen Group. at DividendCafe.com and at WORLD Opinions.

David, hope you have a great week this week. I just want to thank you again for the work that you did with our staff this past week at our retreat. Very much appreciated. So thank you for that, and thank you for this.

We’ll see you next week.

BAHNSEN: Well, thank you. It was an absolute blessing to be there. Thanks so much.

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, how telephones got their start, and the technology that made them possible.

WORLD’s Emma Eicher visited the Asheville Radio Museum in North Carolina, where she spoke with tour guide and radio enthusiast Stuart Smolkin about the science that helped shape the modern world.

STUART SMOLKIN: Do you use Bluetooth? That's radio. Do you have a wireless internet router at home? That's radio. Do you have a wireless remote for opening your car door? That's radio.

EMMA EICHER: The shelves surrounding Stuart Smolkin are filled with old technology: candlestick telephones, woodcarved radios, boxy computers, and electrical telegraphs, like this one:

[MORSE CODE CLICKS]

Smolkin says telecommunications using radio waves changed the world.

It all began in 1831, when scientist Michael Faraday discovered changing magnetic fields can induce electric currents. That led to widespread use of electric telegraphs, which was a way to send messages over wires using electrical pulses.

They used Morse code.

SMOLKIN: You had to be able to convert the dots and dashes into a message.

But telegraphy was expensive, since the copper wires had to be manually placed between towns. And messages had to be short.

In the mid-1800s, scientists raced to find a better way to communicate.

SMOLKIN: Alexander Graham Bell got interested in the idea of, could you somehow send multiple messages at the same time?

Scottish inventor Alexander Graham Bell wondered how to harness these electromagnetic fields.

SMOLKIN: He got the idea that, okay, you could use sound waves to operate something mechanically.

And Bell thought he could figure out a way to replicate voice over the wires. So he teamed up with engineers to make it possible. His invention used a transmitter attached to an electric wire. It functioned like a human diaphragm. A drum vibrated when a voice spoke into it, and then those vibrations traveled across the wire to the receiver, where it recreated the sound.

SMOLKIN: On the other end would be an electromagnet that received the electrical signal that now replicated the voice, and it would operate in the opposite way to cause a diaphragm to vibrate, which would create sound that you could hear.

150 years ago in February, Bell seemed to be the first to the finish line and filed a patent for the first telephone. But a rival named Elisha Gray also submitted a similar patent on the same day.

That launched a debate on intellectual property rights.

About a month later, on March 7th, Bell won the patent, based on old drawings that proved he invented it first.

SMOLKIN: Back then, the patent was awarded based on who got the idea first, not who filed first.

But things turned ugly: the Western Union telegraph company filed a lawsuit to challenge Bell’s patent. They wanted to bury Bell’s fledgling telephone business, fearing the competition.

The litigation climbed all the way to the Supreme Court in the so-called Telephone Cases of 1888.

SMOLKIN: I think the icing on the cake was when expert testimony claimed that what Gray had was not only different, but would never work.

So Bell won the patent war. And his telephone reinvented the communications industry.

One of the earliest telephones was the “candlestick” phone. The mouthpiece is fitted at the top of the stand, and a separate receiver is held to the ear.

AUDIO [PHONE RINGING] Press room, huh? Hello, Sarge …

Candlestick phones are all over the newsroom in the 1940 hit film, His Girl Friday.

And at the sheriff’s station in the 1960 sitcom The Andy Griffith Show. Barney Fife used one to ring up his sweetheart.

AUDIO BARNEY FIFE: Juanita, Juanita, lovely dear Juanite. From your head down to your feet, there is nothing half so sweet!

Bell’s company, American Telephone and Telegraph, eventually pushed Western Union out of the telephone business. This was the same telegraph giant that once tried to ruin Bell. Bell would go on to dominate American telecommunications for most of the 20th century as AT&T.

AT&T pioneered the idea of using radio waves to create wireless telephones. Using its groundbreaking research, scientists eventually invented broadcast radio in the 1900s.

SMOLKIN: You started out with just telegraphy, and then you got wireless telegraphy, and then you got radio that could send wireless telegraphy. And the ability to send voice and music. You put this all together, and that's really how radio communications got started.

And it didn’t stop there. The first television sets in the ‘20s used radio waves along with complex mechanical systems.

SMOLKIN: Black and white picture is transmitted the same way voice is transmitted.

Bell’s telephone paved the way for the technology of the future.

SMOLKIN: All the things we depend on or are not all, but so many of them are basically, the foundation was radio.

[RADIO STATIC]

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

MARY REICHARD, HOST:  Tomorrow: the U.S. battles deeper into Iran. We’ll have a report.

And, a push for states to work together to amend the Constitution. 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: "One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want. Whoever brings blessing will be enriched, and one who waters will himself be watered. The people curse him who holds back grain, but a blessing is on the head of him who sells it." —Verses 24 through 26 of Proverbs 11.

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.