The World and Everything in It: May 5, 2025

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

A political map, a legal trap: Louisiana tried to follow the law but wound up back in court.

AUGINAGA: We would rather not be caught between two parties with diametrically opposed visions of what our Congressional map should look like.

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

Also today, the Monday Moneybeat. The economy shrank the first three months of the year, is recession right around the corner? David Bahnsen is standing by.

And the WORLD History Book. Victory Day in Europe, 80 years ago

TRUMAN: … we join in offering our thanks to the Providence which has guided and sustained us …

REICHARD: It’s Monday, May 5th. 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: It’s time for the news with Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump on China trade war » President Trump, in a weekend interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, defended that ongoing trade war with China.

The president acknowledged that there could be some short-term pain for U.S. consumers, but he said of China:

TRUMP:   They're getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing, their unemployment is going through the roof. I'm not looking to do that to China. Now. At the same time, I'm not looking to have China make hundreds of billions of dollars and build more ships and more army tanks and more airplanes.

He said the U.S. economy will remain strong. He said there are plenty of experts on Wall Street who believe the same.

The S&P 500 finished last week on a nine-day win streak after earlier losses tied to tariff anxiety.

The federal jobs report came in stronger than expected on Friday.

Mike Waltz ambassador nomination reaction » Lawmakers are weighing in on a shakeup in the Trump administration last week.

President Trump removed Michael Waltz as national security advisor but nominated him to be the next US ambassador to the UN.

Republican Congressman Mike Turner:

TURNER:  Mike Waltz, it is, it, you know, has an incredible background and experience, and I'm certainly glad that he's gonna be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration.

But Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth feels differently. She cited Waltz’s role in accidentally looping a reporter in on a sensitive national security discussion using the encrypted messaging app Signal.

DUCKWORTH:  He's not qualified for the job, um, just by nature of the fact that he participated in the signal chain. In fact, I think everybody on that signal chain needs to be fired.

With Waltz’s departure from the White House, Marco Rubio will serve in a dual role as both secretary of state and acting national security advisor.

Stefanik weighing gubernatorial campaign in NY » New York GOP Congresswoman Elise Stefanik had been nominated for that ambassadorship. But she stepped at the request of the White House due to concerns about Republicans' razor thin House majority.

Now Stefanik is strongly considering a gubernatorial bid to unseat Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in New York.

STEFANIK:  Look at the crises that Kathy Hoel and single party Democrat rule have delivered to New Yorkers, and this has been over the period of decades. We have an economic crisis and affordability crisis. If you look, we are the highest tax state in the nation.

Democrats say she’s too closely aligned with President Trump’s agenda to be elected in New York.

Israel vows response to Houthi attack » Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is vowing to retaliate after a missile attack by Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

NETANYAHU:  Obviously we're being challenged. The whole world is being challenged by the Houthis, including in the, uh, dastardly attack they did today near Ben-Gurion Airport. We will not tolerate it. We will take very strong action against them.

A missile strike near Israel’s main international airport halted flights and commuter traffic Sunday. At least eight people were injured.

The attack came hours before Israeli Cabinet ministers were set to vote on whether to intensify military operations in Gaza. The army has begun to call up tens of thousands of reserves in preparation for an expanded assault.

Ukraine peace talks, minerals deal » Meantime, talks continue in an effort to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova told CBS’ Face the Nation:

MARKAROVA:  US has been and is a strategic partnership. Uh, we are really grateful to American people. For all the support that we are getting from the US.

But Moscow appears no closer to agreeing to a ceasefire deal.

A weekend Russian drone attack in Kyiv reportedly wounded 11 people, including two children.

Markarova also Ukraine is happy to have agreed with the U.S. on a new deal that will allow the United States access to rare earth minerals in Ukraine.

MARKAROVA:  This is an economic partnership agreement, uh, to create an investment fund to, for both of our nations, to benefit from amazing investment opportunities that Ukraine has.

Ukrainian leaders hope the U.S. presence on the ground in those mining operations will deter attacks.

Australian prime minister wins reelection » Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese over the weekend won reelection to a second three-year term.

ALBANESE:  Australians have chosen the Australian Labor Party as their government, and our government will choose the Australian way … because we are proud of who we are and all that we have built together in this country.

Albanese’s left-of-center Labor Party won an emphatic victory, easily capturing a majority in the country’s House of Representatives.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton lost his parliamentary seat. His coalition was reduced to 37 seats.

I'm Kent Covington.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 5th day of May, 2025. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

Today, a Legal Docket triple-header. We’ve had a spate of really big cases, and we’re going to move fast today in an effort to catch up. Our first case, Louisiana v Callais.

The state of Louisiana finds its legal position on voting rights between a rock and a hard place.

The rock is the Constitutional requirement not to draw voting maps that focus too much on race. Doing so would violate the 14th Amendment—specifically its equal protection clause.

EICHER: But the hard place is the Voting Rights Act: Ignoring race would potentially violate Section 2 of that landmark law.

So what’s the state to do? For one thing: Look to precedent. The Supreme Court has already ruled that race can be a consideration, it just can’t be forever. Something Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up during oral argument in our first case this morning.

KAVANAUGH: On equal protection law, we've, of course, said… that race-based remedial action must have a logical endpoint, must be limited in time, must be a temporary matter, of course in school desegregation and university admissions….What --how does that principle apply to Section 2?

Section 2 aimed to stop racial discrimination in voting. But it doesn’t expressly guarantee outcomes.

REICHARD: Still, back in 1986, the Supreme Court laid down a test in a case called Gingles. If an ethnic minority group is large, compact, and politically cohesive, it might be entitled to a district that gives the minority group a good chance to elect its preferred candidate.

Now fast forward to Louisiana after the most recent census in 2020. 

  It revealed that a third of the state’s population is black. 

But only one of its six congressional districts contained a majority of black voters.

EICHER: So, a group of black voters sued and won. A federal court ordered Louisiana to draw congressional-district boundaries in such a way as to create a second majority-black district.

The state complied—but the execution produced an odd result: congressional district six. It’s a 250-mile-long diagonal stripe that cuts from Shreveport in the northwest down to Baton Rouge in the south, stringing together distant black communities into a single district.

REICHARD: Chief Justice John Roberts wasn’t impressed with the design:

ROBERTS: How, I mean, if you look at CD6, what does ‘reasonably compact’ mean? I mean, it's --it's a snake that runs from one end of the state to the other. That --I mean, how is that compact?

In the next election, 2024, Republicans won four seats to the Democrats’ two. That was a shift from five-to-one GOP to four-two.

EICHER: That brought a new lawsuit. Phillip Callais and 11 other plaintiffs claiming the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Saying it violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga explained the state’s dilemma:

AGUINAGA: Louisiana would rather not be here….We would rather not be caught between two parties with diametrically opposed visions of what our Congressional map should look like. But this has become life as usual for the states under this Court’s voting cases. And our fundamental question today is: How do we get out of this predicament?

REICHARD: He found an ally in Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who emphasized that Louisiana had been acting under a valid federal court order.

JACKSON: I mean, It existed. And if it existed, then it seems to me there is a good reason for Louisiana to have followed it.

EICHER: But not every justice saw it the same way. The lower court’s order was only preliminary—it hadn’t ruled on the merits—so it wasn’t final. That raised a question: Was it wise for the state to use a not-yet-final order as the basis for drawing race-conscious districts?

Still, the core of the Catch-22 remained. Here’s Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

SOTOMAYOR: I'm sorry. Then there's no way to comply with Section 2.... it’s a vicious cycle they can’t get out of.

REICHARD: Lawyer Stuart Naifeh represented a different set of plaintiffs, led by longtime civil rights advocate Press Robinson. He is a trailblazer in Louisiana’s civil rights movement. He and others argue the current map ensures fair representation for black voters and complies with federal law. So, the two-district map is necessary:

NAIFEH: This court has been clear that states have breathing room to make reasonable efforts to comply with the Voting Rights Act....later…. And breathing room ensures that courts don’t unnecessarily intrude on the legislative domain simply because the state is attempting to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Naifeh argued the lower court got it wrong. He said it treated Louisiana’s effort to follow the Voting Rights Act as inherently suspect—as if simply trying to comply with the law meant the state had bad motives. That, he warned, would create confusion for every state trying to draw legal maps. It could backfire and create more confusion, not less.

EICHER: The core legal question here is the one we mentioned at the beginning: Can a state draw a map based on one court’s view of the Voting Rights Act—without violating the Constitution’s guarantee of equal treatment for all?

REICHARD: And hovering over the whole thing is chaos: lawsuits stacking up, maps changing year to year, voters not knowing which district they’re in. The process is exhausting. And expensive.

EICHER: The political stakes? Huge. Republicans hold the House by only a few seats. Flip one or two, and the balance of power shifts. So the fight over Louisiana’s map isn’t just a legal battle—it could tip the balance of power in Congress.

REICHARD: On to another consolidated case, Oklahoma v EPA and EPA v Calumet. These cases are going to sound a little dry, but they do hit close to home: Clean air. Electricity costs. And how far federal agencies can go.

The issue is venue. As in: where should lawsuits against EPA be heard?

EICHER: Congress did try to spell that out in the Clean Air Act: If an EPA rule is nationwide, the case goes straight to the D.C. Circuit. If it’s regional, it belongs in a local federal appeals court.

Simple enough—until EPA starts blurring the lines.

So what happens when EPA bundles a group of regional decisions together and calls it national?

Justice Clarence Thomas:

THOMAS: Uh, Mr. Stewart, are there any limits to aggregating different claims thereby determining venue in D.C.?

REICHARD: Translation, is EPA gaming the system to get friendlier courts?

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked what changed, besides the EPA’s bundling tactic. The small refineries who say they were wrongly denied rule exemptions want to fight that out in courts closer to home. The Fifth Circuit agreed, but the EPA didn’t and appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Justice Gorsuch seemed to lean in the agency’s direction:

GORSUCH: By gosh, I should hope EPA applies a consistent statutory interpretation across the country. How can that be a basis for venue? ….Venue is supposed to be easy to determine at the outset of the case.

EICHER: But Justice Jackson brought the focus back to Congress and its original intention: Local facts go local, national rules go national.

JACKSON: The venue provision appears designed to send challenges turning on local facts to local circuits, and national challenges to the D.C. Circuit.

REICHARD: The lines remained murky. Justice Gorsuch pressed:

GORSUCH: What simple rule would you have us apply here?

EICHER: In the related case Oklahoma v. EPA, the fight is over the so-called “Good Neighbor” rule—an EPA attempt to cut down on smog crossing state lines. Oklahoma calls it overreach … EPA says smog is no respecter of boundaries—border crossing is a national issue.

REICHARD: Lawyer Misha Tseytlin warned the agency is gaming the system:

TSEYTLIN: EPA essentially says that if it packages separate actions in a single --in a single Federal Register notice, subject to an ill-defined sham exception, it can always get into the D.C. Circuit.

That tactic could cut states and local plaintiffs out of their home courts and stack the deck.

It’s a messy statute, and the Supreme Court has a chance to lay down a workable rule that everyone from state governments to small refineries hopes for.

EICHER: Last case, number three. This one is Riley v Bondi—that’s the new attorney general, already in a named case at the high court. It touches on tourist visas and deportation and will turn on the definition of deadlines.

REICHARD: Orlando Riley overstayed his tourist visa back in the 1990s. Years later, after convictions for drugs and firearms, he landed in prison. During the pandemic, he received early release.

EICHER: But waiting outside the prison gates were immigration agents to give him a ride home: his actual home, in Jamaica. He was being deported.

Riley said he feared for his safety if returned, but the Board of Immigration Appeals turned him down and signed the removal order.

REICHARD: He tried appealing that, but now the question is whether he did so too late. The law gives him 30 days. But 30 days from when: (a) 30 days from the date of the removal order, or (b) 30 days from the time he received it? The government says (a), Riley says (b).

EICHER: And now for two decisions handed down last week:

The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of a Coast Guard reservist, saying federal employees called to active duty during a national emergency are entitled to full differential pay—no strings attached. The decision could affect thousands of service members in civilian government jobs.

REICHARD: And in a 7–2 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the government in a Medicare funding dispute. This one dealt with who counts as “low-income” for the purpose of paying out bonus reimbursements. The court held that only hospital patients actually receiving Supplemental Security Income payments during their stay qualify. The decision narrows the pool of eligible hospitals—and left the challengers without extra funds. And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

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

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

EICHER: Well, Gross Domestic Product shrank three-tenths of a percent in the first three months of 2025; it’s only slightly worse than expectations, but it leads with a minus sign. Now, you’ve pointed out there’s more happening “under the hood” than what the headline tells. So can you walk us through why a big jump in imports and investment pulled-forward drove that number, and why Q1 may not paint the full picture of where the economy really stands?

BAHNSEN: Well, there is a concern here and a caveat for us truth tellers that requires more unpacking. I’ll start with where I think we’re headed.

I am not saying what I’m about to say about Q1 GDP because I’m cheerleading the economy. I’m not. I think we’re in a very precarious position. I think it’s extremely likely that we do dip into a recession. I’m pessimistic about what the impact will be of what we’ve done so far in the trade war and the general business uncertainty that’s been created here over the last six weeks or so. I think it’s very likely to end poorly.

That said, the Q1 GDP report you’re asking me about is a little bit different. Now, the headline of contracting 0.3% when the expectations were for expansion of 0.3, there’s no question that’s problematic.

And Nick, if we do have a negative GDP in Q2, that’ll be two quarters in a row. We all remember what happened in 2022: I wrote an article for WORLD about it back then—where I suggested that even though we did have two quarters of negative in GDP, it doesn’t necessarily mean recession. I ended up being vindicated in that.

But this Q1 had a significant number of increased imports, and the formula for GDP does call for net exports, okay? (That’s exports minus imports.) But what happened here is, because a bunch of people worried about tariffs coming—this is before the April 2 announcement—they were pre-ordering a lot. So that added a spike to the number. The business investment number was also very high, although a lot of that was also pre-ordering of things concerned to capital investment that would be tariffed later. So Q1 is just a mystery in the sense of various things done in advance. They were altered behavior, Nick, in advance of expectations.

That’s not exactly the normalized behavior. There’s an event-driven factor here. I’m interested in normalized behavior. What are businesses doing? What are consumers doing? What is the production level in the economy? What’s the hiring? On that front, the Q1 number wasn’t really that bad. But I think the Q2 number will be.

So, how’s that for a muddy answer? I don’t have a good ending to report, but I don’t think Q1 is a great argument for the difficult ending.

EICHER: We got three key employment data points last week: ADP showed a rise of just 62,000 private payrolls in April. We had weekly jobless claims ticking up. But the government number—the Bureau of Labor Statistics—logged a pretty solid 177,000 jobs added.

So how do you make sense of all this, and what should we be looking for to discern trends?

BAHNSEN: Well, you had a little bit of conflicting data—more or less.

The ADP number and the weekly jobless claims number were weak. The BLS number and the household survey were pretty good. Therefore, my best answer is, let’s look at it next week, next month.

Conflicting data makes it impossible to form a high-conviction answer—unless one is looking to find an answer just to coincide with their priors. You want to predict a bad jobs environment or a good jobs environment, so you cherry pick the reports that help confirm your biases. I don’t want to do that, and yet the data is quite conflicted.

Now the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the main jobs figure, showed 177,000 jobs in the month of April, above expectations. But there were downward revisions in January and February totaling negative 58,000.

The most interesting thing to me was that only 9,000 government jobs were shed. Everyone is saying, “Oh, wow, that’s really good. We thought it was going to be a lot worse.” It doesn’t appear to have been that bad. But see, I think there’s also some that thought they were cutting a lot more than that at DOGE from a government-spending standpoint. Nine-thousand jobs is not very many, compared to the millions of government jobs that are out there.

So, there are many things to look to there, but the ADP number and the BLS number often they come out in the same week—at the beginning of every month. The weekly jobless claims are obviously weekly. The ADP and BLS number is often telling a different story, so that’s why it takes a few months to get a trend. The weekly jobless claims, we’ll follow that, and I guess you and I will have to talk about it again next week.

EICHER: Also last week, we got the White House budget proposal for the new fiscal year. It leaves the big pieces in place, Medicare and Social Security. But it touts a $163 billion reduction in non-defense spending and trims NIH, climate programs, and public broadcasting—while boosting border security. How do we distinguish genuine deficit-reduction from “window dressing”—and what would you call a real win in this budget debate?\

BAHNSEN: Well, none of it is a win—or even could be a win—in the sense that it isn’t legislation. The Trump budget isn’t going to be what Congress passes. So, for me a win, whether I like a budget or I don’t, it has to actually be the budget that becomes law. Again, this isn’t going to be that. But it gives some indication of what Congress wants to do if it wants to coincide with the president’s wishes. It’s the majority party in the White House and the Congress.

How do I say this delicately? It does exactly what he said. He promised he wasn’t going to touch entitlements, and he didn’t touch entitlements. But if you’re not going to touch entitlements, then you’re not going to do anything about the deficit. So, we are in a position where we’re handcuffed as fiscal conservatives, because we are saying two things at once: One is that we believe we have to cut the deficit and pay attention to the national debt.

So you can talk about NIH, and about this program or that, and government efficiency. You can do fraud and waste, do all you want. If you’re on the left, you can even increase some taxes here and there. Either party talking about the budget and not talking about the long-term commitments in Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security is not serious about the debt. That’s just the bottom line.

So this budget reflects that non-seriousness. Now in the short-term political reality, we’ll see how they ultimately reconcile. Because they’re not going to get a bill passed if there isn’t at least window dressing of giving attention to the deficit—because there’s at least a couple fiscal hawks in the House on the Republican side that won’t vote for it if it doesn’t. They have to somehow get some tax cuts in there and then get some spending cuts to make it match to a budget.

If they told the budget, Nick, let’s add to the deficit $5 trillion and then that was passed, then they could do 5 trillion of tax cuts. But they can’t add to the deficit $5 trillion because they won’t get the votes. So, they have to pass a budget that is scored as doing something reasonable on deficit, that satisfies fiscal hawks, and then do tax cuts that match that.

Here’s the challenge: Making all this math work. I still am confident they’re going to get a deal done. I don’t really think they have much choice. But how they’re going to do it, my hope is, in the end, somebody will be honest to make the argument that you’re not cutting Medicaid by cutting the growth of Medicaid. That Medicaid spending does not need to go up from current levels, another $800 billion. That we could just simply limit the growth of Medicaid, and you’re not cutting Medicaid. And then you have a lot of budget availability there for some of the other things they want to do.

That’s where I’m hoping we go. And then at some point in the future, we’re going to need some grownups in the room to deal with Social Security and Medicare long term.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. David writes at WORLD Opinions and at dividendcafe.com. Thanks, we’ll see you next week!

BAHNSEN: See you next week, Nick, thanks so much.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, May 5th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Up next, the WORLD History Book. This week marks the 80th anniversary of the Allies defeat of Hitler in World War II. Enthusiasm for the occasion was subdued as the war with Japan continued.

EICHER: WORLD’s Paul Butler has been combing through radio broadcasts from the time and found some highlights to share.

PAUL BUTLER: On May 1st, 1945, radio services around the world interrupt their regular programming with news from Berlin:

MBS: This afternoon, Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz announced the death of Adolf Hitler.

BBC: Here is a news flash. The German radio has just announced that Hitler is dead. I'll repeat that. The German radio has just announced that Hitler is dead.

JOHN THOMPSON: We have just heard the news here over our monitoring service that Adolf Hitler is dead. The announcement…stated that Hitler had personally selected Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz as his successor. The admiral came on the radio, reported how sad he and the nation were and said he was taking over, according to the fuhrer's wishes…

On its own, Hitler’s death doesn’t guarantee an end to the war. But the writing is on the wall. Just one week later:

BBC: [CHIMES] This is the BBC home service. We are interrupting programs to make the following announcement.

Germany agrees to unconditional surrender. Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz addresses the German people by radio:

DONITZ: [Speaking German] When I addressed the German nation on May 1...I said that my foremost task was to save the lives of the German people. In order to achieve this goal, I ordered the German High Command...to sign the unconditional surrender for all fronts.

He assures the German people that he is honoring Hitler’s wishes and saving as many lives as he can by ordering the German High Command to sign the surrender agreement.

That same day U-S President Harry Truman addresses the American people and U.S. Allies:

TRUMAN: This is a solemn but a glorious hour. The flags of freedom fly all over Europe for this victory, we join in offering our thanks to the Providence which has guided and sustained us through the dark days of adversity, our rejoicing is sobered and subdued by a supreme consciousness of the terrible price we have paid to rid the world of Hitler and his evil band.

That high price is not just in munitions and equipment, but human lives. 250,000 Americans died in Europe. More than 600,000 injured…

TRUMAN: Let us not forget, my fellow American, the sorrow and the heartache which today abide in the homes of so many of our neighbors, neighbors whose most priceless possession has been rendered as a sacrifice to redeem our liberty we can repay the debt which we owe to our God, to our dead, and to our children. Only by work, by ceaseless devotion to the responsibilities which lie ahead of us.

President Truman ends his address with this proclamation:

TRUMAN: It is fitting that we as a nation give thanks to Almighty God who has strengthened us and given us the victory. Now therefore, I, Harry S. Truman, president of the United States of America, do hereby appoint Sunday, May 13, 1945, to be a day of prayer. I call upon the people of the United States, whatever their faith, to unite in offering joyful thanks to God for the victory we have won, and to pray that he will support us to the end of our present struggle and guide us into the ways of peace.

In London, Winston Churchill reminds the British nation that there is still much to do:

CHURCHILL: We may allow ourselves a brief period of rejoicing, but let us not forget for a moment the toils and efforts that lie ahead. Japan, with all her treachery and greed remains unsubdued The injuries she has inflicted upon Great Britain, the United States and other countries and her detestable cruelties call for justice and retribution, we must now devote all our strength and resources to the completion of our tasks, both at home and abroad.

King George VI echoes Truman’s call, speaking of the obligation to honor the fallen, and to commit themselves to God in the days ahead.

GEORGE: In the hour of danger we humbly committed our cause into the hand of God and he has been our strength and shield. Let us thank him for his mercies and in this hour of victory commit ourselves and our new task to the guidance that same strong hand.

As reconstruction begins in Europe, Allied attention shifts to bringing an end to the war in the Pacific Theater. And in just over three months, they succeed. Japan surrenders on August 15^th, unconditionally, bringing an end to the war that defined a generation.

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

MUSIC OUT: [V IS FOR VICTORY]

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: The contentious hearing in the Senate over a bill to combat antisemitism on campus. And, protecting conscience rights for doctors and medical professionals. We’ll meet a man on the front lines. That and more tomorrow.

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio. WORLD’s mission is Biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

The Bible says: “[Or] do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” —1 Corinthians 6:9-11

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.