The World and Everything in It: November 11, 2024

PREROLL: On this Veterans Day, WORLD Radio thanks the men and women of the armed services and their families for your service to our country. I hope you enjoy today’s program.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

The Supreme Court takes up a case on data security that prompted one justice to make an alarming speculation.

GORSUCH:I think China probably has all of our FBI files. Data breaches are part of our lives these days.

NICK EICHER, HOST: The shareholders versus Facebook  on today’s Legal Docket.

Also today, financial analyst David Bahnsen is standing by for the Monday Moneybeat.

And the WORLD History Book. Today, the remarkable journey of a 19th century American journalist and her attempt to circle the globe in record time.

SOT: It's only a matter of 28,000 miles, and seventy-five days and four hours, until I shall be back again.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 11th. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

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

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

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Trump will visit Biden in Oval Office this week » President-Elect Trump doesn’t take office until January, but he’ll be in the Oval Office this week at the invitation of President Bident.

National Security Adviser Jake Sulivan says they’ll meet face to face on Wednesday to discuss the transition. But he said they’ll also talk about policy and the major challenges now facing the nation.

SULLIVAN:  Talk to President Trump about how President Trump is thinking about taking on these, uh, these issues when he takes office.

Sullivan said Biden will take the opportunity to make his case about how the United States should tackle those challenges going forward, including the war in Ukraine …

SULLIVAN:  Because the threat to Ukraine will remain no matter what exactly happens on the battlefield or at the negotiating table, and the United States should not walk away from its commitment.

Ukraine » A top U.K. defense official told the BBC that Russian forces had suffered their worst month of casualties.

Meanwhile a huge nighttime wave of Russian drones targeted Ukraine, and a massive drone strike reportedly rattled Moscow and its suburbs.

Russia's defense ministry said Sunday that its air defenses shot down more than 70 drones over the country.

This came after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law a major military pact with North Korea over the weekend.

Transition in progress »  The transition to Donald Trump's second term as president is officially underway.

Former Democratic congresswoman presidential candidate, turned Trump campaign surrogate Tulsi Gabbard said Sunday:

GABBARD:  If he asks me to serve in a position where I feel I can be effective, uh, to help him carry out his objectives, of course, I'd be honored to do that.

She’s among the names rumored to be in the running for key posts in the next Trump administration. Other names on that list include Sen. Marco Rubio, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, and Trump’s former Sec. of State Mike Pompeo, just to name a few.

Trump made history last week by picking his campaign co-chair, Susie Wiles, for chief of staff, which will make her the first woman ever to hold that job

Anti-Trump protest / Rep. Phillips election postmortem » In New York City over the weekend …

NATS (Anti-Trump protest): Hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go! [fade under and slowly out]

Demonstrators not happy with the election results.

Democratic Congressman Dean Phillips says he shares their frustration, but says Democrats only have themselves to blame. He believes voters did not reject his party’s policies …

PHILLIPS:  Our product is not the real problem. Our packaging, our messengers, and our distribution is a real problem. And I think it's fair to say if you ask people what the Democratic brand stands for right now, it's real complicated.

And he says Democrats should have held an open and honest presidential primary, which might have yielded a stronger candidate.

Congress update / Senator-elect in PA » It looks increasingly likely that Republicans will hang onto their slim majority in the House of Representatives and perhaps even pick up a couple seats.

Prior to the election, the GOP controlled 220 seats. And Congressman Chip Roy said Sunday:

ROY:  I think we're looking at probably ending up somewhere around 222 or 223, uh, which would give us a, you know, at least a healthy majority.

With votes still being counted, it now appears Republicans control at least 213 seats. They need at least five more for a majority.

There are 19 races still undecided.

But the GOP has already claimed control of the Senate, gaining three seats, including in Pennsylvania where Senator-Elect Dave McCormick won a close race.

MCCORMICK: Thank you to the great people of Pennsylvania for giving me this opportunity. I'm, uh, Dina and I are so excited about it.

One Senate race remains undecided. That’s in Arizona. But Democrat Rubin Gallego leads there by nearly 2 points without 90 percent of the votes counted.

Wildfire » A New York parks employee was killed over the weekend fighting one of several wildfires burning in New York and New Jersey. Authorities say he was killed when a tree fell on him.

New Jersey officials said the blaze had spread to 4 square miles and is now threatening numerous structures across both states.

Chief Bill Donnelly with the New Jersey Fire Service:

DONNELLY:  New Jersey hasn't seen anything this dry since we began keeping records, which is one of the obstacles we're facing. So it's very labor intense to put these fires out. It takes a lot of time and energy.

Health advisories were issued in both states due to the unhealthy air quality. Firefighters also were battling smaller blazes in Massachusetts.

I'm Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: the Supreme Court considers a case about the line between mandatory and discretionary disclosures.

Plus, the Monday Moneybeat with David Bahnsen.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s The World and Everything in It for this 11th day of November, 2024. We’re so glad you’ve joined us today. Good morning! I’m Nick Eicher.

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

In his single term of office, President Biden reversed many of his predecessor’s policies.

But what he could not reverse was President Trump’s ideological remaking of the Supreme Court.

Now that Trump is both Biden’s predecessor and his successor, will Trump be able to extend his legal legacy even further?

MEDIA MONTAGE: Everybody here in Washington once we kind of process, what happened is looking at the Court. President Elect Donald Trump's return to the White House puts him once again in a position to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court. If a Supreme Court justice retires in the next year or two, that justice would be replaced by a conservative jurist. There is a very real possibility Donald Trump could appoint five Supreme Court justices.

EICHER: In his first term, Trump appointed three justices. His first, replaced a conservative with a conservative.

GORSUCH: I, Neil M. Gorsuch …

Gorsuch replacing the late Antonin Scalia.

But that was significant in that Republicans blocked President Obama from filling the vacancy and Trump swept into office in 2016 on a promise to nominate from a dazzling list of conservative legal superstars.

REICHARD: Then, his second appointment … 

KAVANAUGH: I, Brett M. Kavanaugh …

… Kavanaugh was sworn in by the justice he’d replace, Anthony Kennedy, and that was an ideological shift to the right.

EICHER: Trump’s third … 

BARRETT: I, Amy Coney Barrett …

… was a seismic shift a conservative appeals-court judge,  Amy Coney Barrett, a devout Roman Catholic mother of seven.

REICHARD: She replaced the ideologically liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg had died in Trump’s last year of his first term.

We don’t have any indication that anyone on the current bench is planning to retire. Still, it’s a fact that time runs out for each of us. The two oldest justices are Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74.

Now, Justice Thomas did once say he’d stay on until age 86. No word on what Justice Alito might be thinking. But we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves.

EICHER: And if the online news site Politico is to be believed, we’re getting way ahead of ourselves.

Politico reports that an “urgent conversation is blowing up largely outside of public view: whether to push for 70-year-old Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to step down … while Dems still have the power to approve her replacement.”

Politico says that’s an actual conversation among Democratic senators. So we’ll see.

REICHARD: Let’s jump into today’s case. It’s Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, and it involves what companies are required to disclose to investors.

Facebook is known by its publicly traded corporate name Meta. And like all publicly traded companies, it’s required to file regular reports with the SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But this case challenges how Facebook described a data misuse incident to the SEC in 2016. Meta framed it hypothetically, saying if user data were improperly accessed, it could hurt the company.

EICHER: But as shareholders later argued, the hypothetical was misleading—because the misuse had already happened.

Facebook allowed a third-party app to access millions of users’ data. When the scandal broke, the value of Facebook stock dropped, and that cost the company billions.

SHANMUGAM: Under the correct approach, this case is an easy one.

Meta’s lawyer is Kannon Shanmugam. He argued that companies need only to warn about future risks, not make disclosures about incidents in the past.

Besides, Meta’s hypothetical statement wasn’t really misleading.

SHANMUGAM: Meta's warnings that business harm could result in the event of data misuse did not imply that Meta had never previously suffered such misuse. But, in any event, the initial misuse of the data had been publicly reported by the time Meta made the statements at issue…

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned that approach. She suggested that past incidents still affect future risks, and it could be misleading to present only future possibilities.

JACKSON: So suppose a realtor is speaking to a potential buyer about a house and he says: If crime goes up in this area, homeowners insurance could become more expensive. The triggering event would be crime, and the harm would be more expensive homeowners insurance. Both of those things in the futuristic statement are happening in the future. Wouldn't it be misleading to make this statement if a string of burglaries had actually happened that month? The homeowner has no way of knowing that. The realtor knows that. And, at the time the statement is made, homeowners insurance has actually already shot up two times higher than before. What I'm suggesting is it's misleading because the homeowner is making a determination of the risk of buying this property and paying a certain amount of homeowners insurance. And, when you say your statement totally futuristically, as though that has --the burglaries never happened, they're miscalculating. They're being misled into making that calculation.

REICHARD: Shanmugam says that’s not misleading. He explained to Justice Jackson that when you carefully parse the meaning of the phrase “if crime goes up”, you can certainly interpret that to mean crime going up from this moment forward.

JACKSON: But, I mean, isn't the whole point -- the whole point of these risk disclosure statements…is that the person who is hearing them is trying to determine whether there's going to be a future harm to their business investment, right? I mean, isn't that what they're doing?

SHANMUGAM: I would slightly disagree with that. I think the point of these risk disclosures, as the SEC itself has made clear, is to warn prospectively about the types of risks that a company would face.

EICHER: Kevin Russell is lawyer for the shareholders. He argued that by failing to disclose data misuse in the past, Facebook was implying it never happened.

But Justice Neil Gorsuch raised the issue of relevance with lawyer Russell, saying data breaches are so common, maybe investors ought to assume them.

GORSUCH: I think China probably has all of our FBI files. Data breaches are part of our lives these days.

RUSSELL: But this wasn't a data breach. And this is really important. That was a principal argument that Facebook made below, that these statements only warned about data breaches, and the Ninth Circuit rejected that reading, and the reason for that is because, unlike a hacking event --and I don't know what China does --here, Facebook allowed a third-party developer --it just gave them the data. And that doesn't happen…all the time. Actually, at the -- before the disclosures in this case, reasonable investors would have thought that it never happened and particularly on this scale. And for --Facebook had faced allegations of this in December of 2015, and it didn't respond by saying: Yeah, that happened and we took care of it. It said: We have to conduct an investigation, and if we do, we will take swift action. And by the time they issued this report in 2016, they hadn't said boo about this. And so, in that context, I think it is very reasonable for investors to understand that by treating it as simply something that may happen in the future, they are confirming that their --what their silence had already conveyed, which is that the --that we didn't substantiate the allegations in the 2015 article.

Justice Alito had a hypothetical about a different sort of risk: 

ALITO: Suppose a company…has an inspector come in. The inspector examines the factory and says your wiring has -- has got to be replaced, but it can't be done in less than six months and that there is an X percentage chance that there's going to be a fire in your factory in the next year. Do they have to disclose that internal report and say we know that there is an X percent chance that a fire is going to occur?
​
RUSSELL: So I think possibly yes, but this is actually the real virtual certainty rule. So this is where something is misleading not because it's already happened in the past but because you are not disclosing something that's virtually certain to happen in the future.

ALITO: Well, it's not virtually certain. There's a certain percentage. Let's say it's a 15 percent chance.

RUSSELL: Well, I think, if the statement is understood to imply that there hasn't been a fire in the past, that's our case, that is our claim here, and that that would be misleading without regard --

ALITO: Well, the statement --

RUSSELL: --to the probability of occurrence.

ALITO: --the statement is, if there is a fire, there will be a substantial disruption of our operations.

RUSSELL: I think, if there has been a fire, that --

ALITO: It doesn't say if there has been. If there is a fire. 

RUSSELL: No, I understand. 

ALITO: Okay.

RUSSELL: I understand that, but a reasonable investor, I think, could read that as saying, you know, we wouldn't be talking about fires in hypothetical terms if there had recently been one that calls into question the safety of the entire facility.

REICHARD: The federal government supports the shareholders on the grounds of corporate transparency.

Justice Kavanaugh wondered why the SEC didn’t just fix the problem. He puts the question to Kevin Barber, assistant to the Solicitor General:

KAVANAUGH: Why can't the SEC just write a reg? It's very simple, I think, to add something like: “When the company discloses the risk of a future event that could cause harm, also disclose any past occurrences of that event.”

BARBER: The SEC could always be clearer…

However the court decides, this case will shape what companies must disclose in the future.

If Facebook wins, the standard for disclosure might stay as it is. If the shareholders win, the standard is going to be more detailed, and that could mean more transparency.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket!

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Next up 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, David, obviously, more to come on filling out Team Trump, but we did find out his chief of staff, and the position will be going to the first woman ever to hold the role, Susie Wiles. What do you take from that move?

BAHNSEN: I think it is absolutely an encouraging sign. There are a lot of appointments to go, but to have named a chief of staff who I believe is a very gifted administrator and executive—someone who has been dealing with his campaign for two years, and really much longer, because she ran the Florida operation going back to 2016—Sue is a grown-up. My concern would have been having someone who is only a big fan and not necessarily someone with the maturity, experience, and executive talent in that position. That would have been a concern. But I’m encouraged that Susie Wiles has been named chief of staff.

Now we move on to some of the other cabinet and advisory positions, which are really, to me, besides the election result itself, the most important thing in terms of what we can expect for the next several years. I by no means hold out hope that I’m going to like every single person who gets appointed—it just isn’t the way this stuff works. But philosophically and ideologically, there are certain people he can appoint to certain positions that will give a lot of indication as to where the agenda will go. This is a really pivotal time for the administration.

EICHER: Well, David, we did talk immediately after the election to get the initial market reaction to the Trump victory. Now that we’ve had a few days and you’ve had a little more time to process the data, what is your sense now of what markets are thinking about a second Trump presidency?

BAHNSEN: It’s really interesting, Nick. Inflation expectations, as measured in the bond markets’ TIP spreads, didn’t move. By the end of the week, even the bond yields themselves came back to where they started, while the Dow was up 2,000 points. Here you have the market placing a very big bet, and I really hope the market’s right. The market is betting that Trump is not going to do his tariffs. Tariffs are definitely inflationary, and the market’s betting on growth, not inflation. That’s another way of saying, maybe he’s going to threaten tariffs, maybe negotiate with them, maybe achieve some positive results by dangling them, but not actually implement them. That seems to be the consensus view right now. It’s not a foregone conclusion, but it’s certainly the one I’m hoping for.

Yes, after the election, I said this to you on Wednesday of last week, and I’ll repeat it now: the market was likely going to rally to some degree just by having it over. There was a removal of uncertainty premium, and the fact that it didn’t take two to three days, let alone two to three weeks—in fact, barely took two to three hours—is good for markets. I think when we talked on Wednesday, there was still a chance of 54 or 55 Senate seats. It looks like now we are going to end up right at 53. The Republicans have prevailed in West Virginia, as expected, Montana as expected, Ohio, which was 50-50, and then Pennsylvania, which was much, much less than 50-50.

So, that puts it at a net four pickup for the GOP in the Senate. Fifty-three is different than 51—you’re going to get the committees no matter what, you’re going to have a majority legislatively no matter what. But now you can afford to lose a couple of seats. Still, this is just a big pickup that gives a legislative agenda a lot more leverage going forward.

EICHER: So before we go, David, I wonder where you think Kamala Harris went wrong on economic messaging. Clearly, the economy was a motivator and a big issue for voters. Where do you lay the blame on her economic approach?

BAHNSEN: You know what’s funny, Nick? I was prepared to say, if Trump had lost, where Trump went wrong on economics was that Kamala refused to provide details and substance, and he had a chance to really lean into his first-term success and reiterate real policy, real data, real economic philosophy—you know, sounding more Reaganite, that kind of stuff. I felt his campaign didn’t do it as much; he did more pandering and so forth.

At the end of the day, Kamala had so many flaws as a candidate, and that’s a story for other political analysts to deal with. But on the economic front, I think she had two bad options and picked one of them. By not giving any detail, by not really leaning into any agenda, I think that was a tough thing to do politically. Platitudes, hope, and opportunity—what did she say?

EICHER: The opportunity economy, yeah.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, that’s what she went with. And it was vacuous, condescending, and insulting, and it didn’t work. But then, what was the other option? To say, “I’m a tax-and-spend San Francisco progressive”? Was that going to sell? Kamala’s problem was Kamala. She didn’t have the option, politically, of saying what she really believes. People keep asking, “Why didn’t Bill Clinton advise her to push back against that transgender commercial?” and “What would she do differently than Biden?” and “What would she do to bring down inflation?” The reason she didn’t do those things is because she doesn’t disagree with them. The political talent, the political athleticism, of a Barack Obama or Bill Clinton—to be reasonably left-wing economically, but know that the American people want to hear something more centrist and moderate—that’s a very tough thing to do. Kamala Harris just wasn’t that.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, founder, managing partner, and chief investment officer of The Bahnsen Group. If you’re not subscribing to David’s regular market writing, you can find out more at dividendcafe.com. It’s free, and you can receive it in your inbox.

Well, David, thanks! Have a great week!

BAHNSEN: Thanks so much, Nick. You too.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Today is Monday, November 11th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. Up next, the WORLD History Book. One hundred thirty-five years ago this week, an intrepid female reporter from New York attempts to circumnavigate the globe—trying to do it in less than 80 days. Here’s WORLD’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: One Sunday in 1888, journalist Elizabeth Cochrane can’t sleep. She’s supposed to pitch a story to her editor in the morning, but her mind is completely blank.

COCHRANE: It is sometimes difficult to tell exactly what gives birth to an idea. 

By three in the morning Cochrane is desperate. She tosses fitfully in her bed!!!wishing she was at the “other end of the earth.” That’s it! What if she tried traveling around the globe!!!and faster than Phileas Fogg in Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days?

The next morning, the 24-year old makes a beeline for the steamship company’s office to quickly look over the time tables before heading to work.

COCHRANE: Anxiously I sat down and went over them and if I had found the elixir of life I should not have felt better than I did when I conceived a hope that a tour of the world might be made in even less than eighty days.

Elizabeth Cochrane had made a name for herself a year earlier when she convinced doctors she was insane. She spent 10 days in the New York’s Women’s Lunatic Asylum and chronicled her experiences in the New York World newspaper under the alias “Nellie Bly.” Her reporting led to immediate asylum reforms and solidified her position with the paper, but convincing her editor of this latest idea seems like a long shot.

Cochrane approaches her editor timidly. He asks if she has any ideas.

COCHRANE: I think I can beat Phileas Fogg's record. 

To her dismay she learns the paper has already thought of the same idea and is looking for the right reporter to send on the trip a man.

Her editor says he’ll see what he can do but it’s unlikely. Cochrane doesn’t speak any language other than English, she’s a young, single woman, and—he adds—women require too much baggage to travel lightly, making a sprint to catch trains and ships challenging.

Cochrane sets aside the idea and works on other stories, then nearly a year later, her editor calls her into his office and asks if she can start on a round the world trip in two days. She agrees, and decides to travel with just one bag.

COCHRANE: Packing that bag was the most difficult undertaking of my life!!!

Cochrane squeezes a lot into it: two hats, three veils, a pair of slippers, an ink-stand, pens, pencils, and copy-paper, pins, needles and thread, a dressing gown, a blazer, a small flask and a drinking cup, several undergarments, and a liberal supply of handkerchiefs. And a bulky jar of face cream that Cochranes says was the hardest thing to fit into the bag. The only dress she brings is the one she’s wearing as she leaves.

Once packed, she says goodbye to a couple friends and then rushes out the door.

COCHRANE: "It's only a matter of 28,000 miles, and seventy-five days and four hours, until I shall be back again."

Her adventure begins in New York on November 14th, 1889 as she boards the Augusta Victoria headed for England. From there she heads to France where she risks making her next connection to meet author Jules Verne and his wife at their home.

In the hall hangs a world map with a blue pencil line tracing Phileas Fogg’s route. Another line marks where Cochrane’s journey differs.

COCHRANE: Jules Verne said: “If you do it in seventy-nine days, I shall applaud with both hands," and then I knew he doubted the possibility of my doing it in seventy-five, as I had promised. His glass tipped mine as he said: "Good luck, Nellie Bly."

Readers all across the country follow her progress in the New York World newspaper, reading of the kindness of strangers

COCHRANE: Shortly before noon I became acquainted with an Englishman who belongs to the Civil Service in Calcutta!!!Learning that I was traveling alone, he devoted most of his time looking out for my comfort and pleasure.

Cochrane’s reports also feature frustrating delays, one stoppage lasts five days in modern day Sri Lanka as she awaits the next ship to arrive. She’s convinced it will throw everything else off schedule. But the next leg of the trip raises a much more life-threatening concern.

COCHRANE: One night during the monsoon the sea washed over the ship in a frightful manner!!!I thought it very possible that I had spoken my last word to any mortal, that the ship would doubtless sink...

The storm lasts for days, hurricane force winds drive the ship before it. When they arrive in Hong Kong, they are two days ahead of the original schedule.

Relieved, Elizabeth Cochrane is also surprised to discover something else. On Christmas day, 1889, she sees an American flag for the first time since leaving New York.

COCHRANE: It is a strange fact that the further one goes from home the more loyal one becomes. The moment I saw it floating there in the soft, lazy breeze I took off my cap and said: "That is the most beautiful flag in the world, and I am ready to whip anyone who says it isn't."

The rest of her journey includes record breaking speeds both on sea and land. She boards a train in San Francisco on January 22nd and the steam engine screams across the country. Cochrane makes a handful of special appearances in cities along the route, but never for very long.

She arrives in New York on January 25th, 1890 at 3:51 p.m. 72 days, six hours and 11 minutes after leaving. She’d done it. Thousands welcome her home.

COCHRANE: I took off my cap and wanted to yell with the crowd, not because I had gone around the world in seventy-two days, but because I was home again.

Cochrane later publishes the complete account of her adventure in book form: Around The World In Seventy-Two Days. She ends with this heartfelt note:

COCHRANE: To so many people this wide world over am I indebted for kindnesses that I cannot, in a little book like this, thank them all individually. They form a chain around the earth. To each and all of you, men, women and children, in my land and in the lands I visited, I am most truly grateful.

Jules Verne sends Cochrane a telegram congratulating her for her record setting achievement, a record that stands for only a few months when a businessman completes the journey five days faster, though he didn’t have to make the trip in a dress, with an editor breathing down his neck, nor a large jar of face cream.

That’s this week’s WORLD History Book. I’m Paul Butler. My thanks to my colleague Emma Perley for reading Elizabeth Cochrane’s writings about her trip.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: voters in seven states approved ballot measures removing protections for the unborn. We’ll hear how pro-lifers plan to regroup.

And, a federal judge shields a homeless ministry from state scrutiny, a decision that may land at the Supreme Court. 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 Apostle Paul wrote: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” —I Corinthians 15:3-8

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.