The World and Everything in It: Monday, June 26, 2023

PREROLL: The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like us. This is Matt Jensen up in Northern California. We really enjoy listening to the podcast each day and especially love passed forward on World Watch. We are making a gift today to be a part of the June Giving Drive. Would you consider joining us and making a gift as well? Enjoy today's program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning! As we await the really big decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, we’ll review multiple opinions handed down last week, including one somebody will call a stinker.

KANNON SHANMUGAM: This is a case in which the government not only threw a skunk into the jury box but pointed to it repeatedly.

NICK EICHER, HOST: We’ll get caught up today on Legal Docket.

Also today the Monday Moneybeat: today shareholder activism and how to thrive in a slow-growth economy.

And the WORLD History Book. Ten years ago, a tightrope walker crosses the Grand Canyon with no safety harness.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, June 26th. 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 Kent Covington.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Russia » Russian government troops withdrew from the streets of Moscow and people flocked to parks and cafes Sunday after a short-lived revolt by mercenary forces.

While the would-be coup was put down, U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said it’s bad news for Vladimir Putin nonetheless.

TONY BLINKEN: This is at the least an added distraction for Putin and for Russia. I think it’s to the advantage of Ukraine.

The Wagner mercenary group had been fighting for Russia in Ukraine, but on Saturday they began a mobilization on Moscow. Leader Yegeny Prigozhin called it a “march for justice.” That followed his claim that Russian military leaders ordered attacks on his forces.

The government of Belarus brokered a late-night deal with Prigozhin to stop the march on the capital.

Prigozhin will go into exile in Belarus in exchange for escaping prosecution.

Titan implosion latest » The U.S. Coast Guard is leading an investigation into the loss of the Titan submersible that was carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.

Capt. Jason Neubauer says depending on what investigators find:

JASON NEUBAUER: They can make recommendations to the proper authorities to pursue civil or criminal sanctions as necessary.

Neubauer is the chief investigator. He says the Coast Guard has mapped the accident site in the North Atlantic.

All five people aboard the submersible were killed instantly when the vessel imploded roughly an hour and a half into the two-and-a-half-hour descent to the ocean floor.

Presidential politics » On the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, former President Donald Trump over the weekend touted his record as a pro-life president.

DONALD TRUMP: Stopped taxpayer funding for abortion providers, and at the United Nations, I made clear that global bureaucrats have no business have no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that protect innocent life.

But Trump has taken heat from pro-lifers for suggesting a new law in Florida that protects the unborn at six weeks gestation is “too harsh.”

He was one of several presidential candidates in Washington for the Faith & Freedom Coalition Policy Conference.

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made good on his pledge to take the fight to Donald Trump. Christie said the former president “let us down.”

CHRIS CHRISTIE: He is unwilling to take responsibility for any of the mistakes that were made, any of the faults that he has, and any of the things that he’s done.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis told the crowd that it’s time to stand up and say “no” to men competing in women’s sports.

RON DESANTIS: When the NCAA crowns that swimmer the women’s champion, they’re not only taking away opportunities for other women athletes, they are asking us to be complicit in a fraud.

Recent polls still suggest that the primary contest is at present a two-person race between Trump and DeSantis.

But at least one new poll suggests the Justice Department’s recent indictment of Trump has worked in his favor with GOP voters.

House Intelligence on Wuhan report » The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee says a new U.S. Intelligence report on the origins of COVID-19 does not comply with a federal law passed earlier this year.

MIKE TURNER: This is not sufficient. And certainly this is going to be set up between a battle between Congress and Director of National Intelligence.

Chairman Mike Turner told CBS the law requires agencies to declassify information about the virus’s beginnings and that this report doesn’t do that.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence reported Friday that there is no consensus across government agencies that a lab leak in Wuhan, China, triggered the pandemic. The report does note that some agencies, including the FBI believe a lab leak was to blame.

Yellowstone derailment » In Montana, officials are testing the water in part of the Yellowstone River after a bridge collapsed and sent rail cars plunging into the water carrying hazardous materials .

David Stamey is Chief of Emergency Services for Stillwater County.

DAVID STAMEY: We've identified that two different materials that were potentially spilled in the water. So one is sulfur, and one is asphalt.

He said no one was injured or killed during the incident.

Officials say the asphalt and molten sulfur harden upon contact with water and likely won’t travel very far downstream.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: Sorting through Supreme Court opinions on Legal Docket. Plus, how to respond to so-called “Japanification” in the Monday Moneybeat. 

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Monday morning, June 26th and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

We’re into our final week in WORLD’s June Giving Drive.

So thanks and a challenge: If you’ve given this go-around, thank you . It’s so important and needed, and we do understand the difficulty of the economy, so a special thanks.

If you’ve not given yet, I’ll just say again we do rely on your gifts. And if this program has value to you, then let that be your motivator to give today at wng.org/donate.

It’s time for Legal Docket.

It’s the final week of this term of the U.S. Supreme Court. That means a fistful of opinions to cover, maybe two, maybe more. They include much-anticipated decisions about our first freedoms—religion and speech among them.

We’ll bring you more in-depth coverage of those this week and next.

But let’s get caught up on opinions the court released last week: we have eight opinions, and we’ll run through them quickly today with links in the transcript should you want to read the opinions for yourself.

EICHER: All right, here we go! First up, the case involving the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to confront witnesses in a criminal trial.

Adam Samia is a hit man serving a life sentence. That won’t create much sympathy for him, but the legal issue is what that right to confront witnesses means.

In Samia’s trial, a co-defendant wrote a confession that ID’d him as an accomplice to murder. But that co-defendant never took the witness stand, so Samia’s lawyer had no chance to cross-examine.

REICHARD: Back in March, Samia’s lawyer during argument delivered this memorable close. This is Kannon Shanmugam.

KANNON SHANMUGAM: If you throw a skunk in the jury box, you can't instruct the jurors not to smell it. And I would submit that this is a case in which the government not only threw a skunk into the jury box but pointed to it repeatedly, and the jury could hardly be expected to ignore it.

Six justices weren’t persuaded. The written confession with Samia’s name blotted out along with limiting jury instructions satisfies the Constitutional protection.

Dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Kentanji Brown Jackson thought the court was elevating form over substance, thereby undermining a vital constitutional protection.

EICHER: A second ruling came in a case we covered last week involving two Russian citizens. The court held that US racketeering law may be used to enforce foreign arbitration awards.

In this case, Vitaly Smagan spent years trying to collect a multimillion dollar arbitration award. He sought it against a man named Ashot Yegiazaryan. Smagan lives in Russia and Yegiazaryan lives in the United States. Smagan sued in American courts under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, RICO. But Yegiazaryan argued that statute requires a “domestic injury” and with Smagan still in Russia, the injury doesn’t qualify as domestic.

You can hear Chief Justice John Roberts’ doubt about that in this from oral argument in April:

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, here the plaintiff obtained a California judgment to collect California property against someone living in California based on conduct in California. Right?

LEVY: There's a California judgment recognizing an award rendered abroad.

JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why can't we consider, with all those connections, that that's a domestic injury?

REICHARD: There it is. A 6-to-3 majority found no reason not to. So Smagin prevails under the RICO statute to enforce his award.

Okay, on to the third opinion: a loss for a man sentenced to additional time for unlawful possession of a gun as a felon.

Years after Marcus Jones’ conviction, the Supreme Court changed what the government has to prove in cases like his. First, that he possessed a gun and second, that he knew his legal status as a “felon.”

Jones wanted a chance to be found innocent under that new standard of proof that hadn’t been required at the time of his trial.

EICHER: But another majority of six said he could not: that Jones had already used up his appeals, and he cannot have another day in court based on a more favorable interpretation of law adopted after his conviction became final. Dissenters were again Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.

Opinion four: a 5-4 loss for the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo reservation is 17 million acres, and it suffers under lack of infrastructure. It sought a court order to require the U.S. to assess the tribe’s water needs and then secure that water from the Colorado River.

But the majority held that an 18-68 treaty doesn’t require the U.S. to take “affirmative steps” to do that. That treaty says the federal government guarantees the Tribe’s agricultural needs, but that doesn’t necessarily include water rights.

REICHARD: Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a vociferous dissent joined by the three liberal justices. It’s an in-depth read of Native American history. One quote that caught my eye from the dissent is when Gorsuch writes that the Navajo have tried everything to get clarity on the responsibility of the federal government. He writes, quoting now: “..when all of those efforts were rebuffed, they brought a claim seeking to compel the United States to make good on its treaty obligations by providing an accounting of what water rights it holds on their behalf. At each turn, they have received the same answer: “Try again.” When this routine first began in earnest, Elvis was still making his rounds on The Ed Sullivan Show.”

EICHER: On to the fifth opinion: Pugin v Garland, a 6-3 loss for two immigrants in the U.S. who hold green cards. They were subject to deportation because they were convicted of crimes “related to obstruction of justice.” The legal question had to do with the meaning of the phrase “related to obstruction of justice.”

Does it require an active investigation or pending court case?

The majority says no. Crimes involving obstruction of justice are deportable under applicable law, period.

REICHARD: Okay, moving right along!

Our sixth opinion is in the case captioned US v Hansen. Here, Helaman Hansen duped hundreds of noncitizens with a promise to get them adopted as adults in order to secure U.S. citizenship. The scam netted him nearly $2 million.

He was convicted under a law that he argued was overbroad: words like “induce” and “encourage” to break the law could sweep up all kinds of ordinary speech and make criminals of all of us.

But a majority 7 justices did not buy the argument. They held that Congress intended the words to mean criminal solicitation, and that’s what the scammer did.

Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

EICHER: Two more opinions to go! This one, US v Texas is a dispute over immigration policy by the Biden administration.

The 8-1 ruling says the states of Texas and Louisiana lack standing to challenge the Biden administration for ending the policy known as Remain in Mexico.

The states argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires illegal aliens to be detained or sent to a bordering nation pending resolution regardless of risk level to public safety.

But the federal government had the winning argument. Here’s Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar during argument in March:

PRELOGAR: And it makes sense because, in a world where we don't have sufficient beds, as everyone acknowledges, there is a imperative public interest in ensuring that we are detaining the people who might be criminals or who might abscond or who threaten our national security and not simply filling those beds on a first come basis with no accounting for the limited detention capacity.

REICHARD: Okay, we’ve made it to the final opinion for today: Coinbase v Bielski. It’s a 5-4 decision in a technical arbitration dispute.

In this case, a man alleges that an online currency platform did not return money that had been fraudulently removed from his account. But he’d signed an agreement to resolve disputes using arbitration. So when Abraham Bielski sued, the company cited that agreement to force him into arbitration.

The question was whether Bielski’s court case must be put on hold while the arbitration question is pending. The answer is clear: yes, it must. Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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: Well, 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. He joins us now from New York. David. Good morning.

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

EICHER: Well, we have a couple of listener questions this morning, David, that I think you'll want some time to answer. So let's just quickly touch base with your sense of the top story of the week, then we'll get to those questions. But what would you call our attention to today?

BAHNSEN: There really was a lot of central bank activity, and our central bank didn’t meet this week for any policy reason.

Chairman Powell did testify before the House Congressional Committee, as well as the Senate Banking and Finance Committee. It was fascinating to me how message-disciplined and message-consistent he was with what the Fed said the week prior, where you could have taken any message you wanted out of what he said. It either sounded really hawkish, like, "Oh, we have a lot more tightening to do," or it sounded really dovish: "Oh we’re pausing and we don’t know if we’re going to need to go again or not." There were just sort of different tones coming from our Fed Chairman’s mouth.

The Bank of England, on the other hand, raised rates more than expected; the Swiss National Bank raised rates less than expected. And the European Central Bank raised rates exactly as expected. So there’s kind of just different things going on with different central banks around the world. And the reason I bring that up is I think the global monetary policy right now is a big factor in what financial conditions are likely to be in the economy for some time.

EICHER: All right, David, we received an email from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, it's home to the US National Ski Hall of Fame, Ishpeming, Michigan. Listener Jordan Langness has a question on shareholder activism. And Jordan writes this: "I have been intrigued by your comments on shareholders voting and company elections, and I'd like to hear a little more about how that works. As an example, with Target's recent loss in market cap and lower prices, would this be an opportunity for small and simple investors to buy a share or two in order to have a seat at the table and vote on certain issues? How much weight in voting would a shareholder with only a few shares have? Is it a system where the more shares you have, the more influential your vote is? I know there are a lot of questions there. But I would love to know a little more about how this works and how we can influence change. David, thanks for all you do to educate people like me." Well, what do you say to Jordan?

BAHNSEN: Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to answer the mathematical part. Yes, it is proportionate to share ownership. So when you take a company like Target that has a $61 billion market cap and a $130 share price, you can imagine that having one or two shares at $130 divided by $61 billion of shares isn’t going to have any impact whatsoever. There would be no benefit or reason to buy a couple shares to go have a vote.

But then if you don’t mind, Nick, I’d rather give the philosophical answer. Let’s say it did work so that you got one vote for having one chair, and you also got one vote for having a million chairs. That isn’t the way it works. But even if it was, I do not believe that people should be buying shares as activists. I think that there’s a philosophy of shareholder engagement that requires the belief you want to be invested in that company: You have to believe it’s a good investment.

I’m engaging because I think management is doing something to damage my investment. And you say, “well, I don’t need to be an owner at Target to not like what they’re doing.” And that’s true. But firstly, there’s not much of a limiting principle there. You’re going to want to go buy one share in every single company in the world. You’re going to want to be a private owner of every private business in the world, because every company is doing something out there you might want to have an influence in.

The reality is that there is something very authentic and very appropriate for people who are owners of a business. It’s not manipulative, isn’t agendized, I am engaging with management and wanting to vote shares and offer resolutions and have an influence and speak at shareholder meetings and talk to investor relations because I value the investment.

Of course, part of valuing the investment is valuing what it is they’re doing within the society. And so that is a strongly held philosophical belief of mine, that Christians ought to be engaging as shareholders who care about the direction of the company, not people who are just riding a quick highway. I think we’ll have less influence that way if we’re deemed as sort of a manipulators as opposed to true engagement. But of course, it’s somewhat moot to the point of this thoughtful question. Because yeah, one or two shares is really going to be quite a waste of time.

EICHER: Alright, our last question today comes from Ashleigh Lankford, Lucas, Texas up in the Dallas area, young couple planning for the future. Obviously, David, Ashley pays careful attention. She writes this: "Hi, David, I have heard you mentioned several times you think our American economy is headed toward Japanification, and not a robust growing economy? How do you recommend that we save and prepare for retirement in an economy with little to no growth? Now for background, she says that she and her husband are approaching age 40. They've been doing all of the recommended things for saving for retirement. But without that growth, she says saving for retirement feels a bit overwhelming, especially if Japanification is indeed what is ahead. I'm sure many listeners can relate to this." And David, I am sure she's right. And I'm also sure you've got quite a lot to say to Ashley and her family.

BAHNSEN: I sure do. It concerns me that the message of Japanification first of all is not something I think we’re going into in the future, I think it’s something we’ve been in for 15 years just to a less certain degree. We’ve been growing at 1.6% for 15 years. So this is not a prediction; this is historical commentary. It’s been happening and is happening now. We’re in a 1% growth environment right now, and that assumes we don’t go into a recession. And so Japanification is a very real thing, if you define it as downward pressure on growth created by excessive indebtedness that is treated with things like fiscal and monetary policy that themselves cause more downward pressure on growth. It speaks to a vicious cycle.

I use the term Japanification to describe that cycle, because it’s a cycle Japan has been in for some time with the result being downward pressure on its macroeconomic growth. But the conclusion that she proposes is the very opposite of the conclusion that I have drawn. My conclusion is not that people should be less incentivized to save for retirement or to prepare for the future, but that they should be more incentivized because they will not have the benefit of rising economic growth just easily bringing everybody to the desired finish line.

I think Christians ought to be more incentivized to look at the future, because there is going to be a premium on people who are bringing particularly competitive and opportunistic value to the marketplace. And there will certainly be a premium on virtue and character. Because even if things are negative, our country is not going to get out of Japanification without some pain. My advice to individuals is that you take your own financial backyard, your own preparations (not just in terms of saving) seriously and become what we call anti-fragile to the macro conditions. Not only your own investing and whatnot, but your own presence in the marketplace, being a faithful presence, that you are in a position to compete and to be opportunistic to be relevant at your jobs. We’re not talking about necessarily facing a high unemployment rate. We’re talking about stagnation in the productive capacity, having kids who are having more kids, and their kids having kids. Things like that are really great opportunities for Christians in this Japanification moment.

EICHER: Alright, David Bahnsen is Founder, Managing Partner and Chief Investment Officer of the Bahnsen Group. His personal website is bahnsen.com. His weekly Dividend Cafe you can find it dividendcafe.com. And by the way, another great Dividend Cafe I would commend to you on the subject of Japanification, I read it this weekend. It's based on a speech that David delivered at the Acton Institute in Grand Rapids. It includes the slide deck so the reader can follow along with the charts that illustrate the point again, dividendcafe.com. David, thank you. We will see you next time. And in the meantime, I hope you have a great week.

BAHNSEN: Well, thanks so much, Nick and I do hope that listeners will really pay attention to that June giving drive. I think it is a wonderful opportunity to support WORLD with and hope people will take note.

EICHER: Thank you.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, June 26th. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Coming up next, the WORLD History Book. Today the first successful tightrope crossing of the Grand Canyon. Plus, one of the most important Presidential speeches of the cold war. But first, lifting immigration quotas after World War II. Here is WORLD Radio executive producer Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S. It assigned a national origins quota as the basis of who could enter the country. During the 1930s and 40s millions of Europeans were being displaced by the war with Hitler’s Germany—but many who wanted to seek refuge in America could not because of the immigration quotas.

In 1943 The U.S. government joined with 43 other UN nations to try and alleviate suffering of displaced peoples through the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. U.S. President Franklin D Roosevelt:

ROOSEVELT: This agreement shows that we mean business in this war. In a political and humanitarian sense. Just as surely as we mean business in a military sense.

The U.S. funded nearly half of the program to help European refugees, but U.S. immigration policies still prevented many of them from finding refuge in this country. So on June 25th, 1948, The United States Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act. It temporarily allowed war refugees to immigrate to the United States above quota restrictions. U.S. President Harry S. Truman:

HARRY TRUMAN: But there was an immediate need. Those displaced persons had to have a place to live and it was up to us to find it.

The first displaced persons arrived in the U.S. on October 30th, 1948. By the end of the program in 1952, a total of 393,542 people started new lives in the United States.

Next, June 26th, 1963. U.S. President John F. Kennedy is in West Berlin.

JFK: I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor.

President Kennedy addressing a crowd of more than 100,000 people from the steps of city hall:

JFK: What is true of this city is true of Germany—real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice.

Kennedy is in Berlin to offer support to democratic West Germany just two months after the Soviet-backed East Germany erected the Berlin Wall.

JFK: Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.

In the 1960s there was a growing number of international and domestic voices suggesting that the world could learn to cooperate with the USSR. In one of the most poignant moments in Kennedy’s speech, he points to the Berlin Wall as an example as to why that isn’t true:

JFK: There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists Lass' sie nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.

The speech is remembered today for how Kennedy opened and closed his remarks … saying that the fight for freedom in Berlin makes every free person in the world “a Berliner.”

JFK: All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner." [APPLAUSE]

Finally this morning, we return to June 23rd, 2013:

NIK WALLENDA: Whew! That’s a view there buddy. Praise you God. Praise you Jesus.

10 years ago the “King of the Highwire” Nik Wallenda takes his first steps across the Grand Canyon. The Discovery Channel broadcasts the event.

WALLENDA: The winds are way worse than I expected. It’s nothing that you haven’t encountered before. I just need to relax more. That’s right. It’s kind of hard to relax when you’re 1500 feet off the ground. I hear you.

Nik Wallenda is the seventh generation of circus performers. He began walking the high wire when he was just two years old—though he didn’t perform publicly until becoming a teenager.

Conquering the Grand Canyon has been a life-long dream.

SOUND: [WALLENDA WALKING GRAND CANYON]

It’s taken six years of planning and training. The 1-inch wire sways in the 48-mile an hour wind. Wallenda carries nothing more than a balance pole. A camera is mounted to his chest. He is completely untethered as he walks 1300 feet from one side of the canyon to the other..

Millions of people watch on television, but his wife and children wait for him at the end of the wire. Wallenda spoke with WORLD’s Steve Coleman ahead of the stunt:

WALLENDA: I do find my peace in my Lord and Savior, but I do not feel in any way that God keeps me on that wire. I feel that God's given me amazing talent, a unique ability and it's up to me whether I train properly or not. And he provides me with a peace of knowing if I do fall and die where I'm going to go. Thank you Jesus. Thank you Lord.

After 23 minutes of carefully placing one foot in front of the other, Nik Wallenda arrives safely on the other side. He sprints the final yards, jumps down, and kisses the ground. He then hugs his wife and kids. He becomes the first man to successfully walk across the Grand Canyon on a highwire.

Wallenda topped this stunt by traversing 1800 feet over the mouth of an active Nicaraguan volcano in 2020. He currently holds 11 Guinness World Records and was inducted into the Circus Hall of Fame last year.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: A bipartisan immigration bill does it have a chance in Congress?

And, that Titan submersible that had the nation’s attention riveted last week. We’ll talk with an expert on what likely went wrong. 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 book of Revelation says: Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!” Revelation 5, verses 13 and 14.

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.