The World and Everything in It: November 14, 2022

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

You can send money person to person through MoneyGram, without using a bank. But what happens to the money when the person you sent it to doesn’t claim it?

That’s a tough legal question that requires the judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court.

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

Also today the Monday Moneybeat, consumer price inflation is starting to ease a bit and the stock market is rallying a bit. Plus, your questions for economist David Bahnsen.

And the WORLD History Book. Today remembering the author of one of Christianity’s most enduring devotionals.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 14th. 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: Senate/House » With a runoff election in Georgia still looming, there’s one last Senate race left to decide. But either way, Democrats will keep control of the Senate after Senator Catherine Cortez Masto squeaked out a win in Nevada.

MASTO: I know what it takes to deliver for my home state. So when the national pundits said I couldn’t win, I knew Nevada would prove them wrong.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans gave Democrats a gift by nominating candidates who questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

SCHUMER: This bothered the American people. They said what’s going on here? This is not the America we know and love, where we deny elections.

Republicans are still likely to capture control of the House, albeit by a much smaller margin than expected. Indiana Congressman Jim Banks on Sunday said a GOP–led House will hold the Biden administration accountable.

BANKS: Oversight is a primary function of the Congress. And for the last two years, there has been no oversight of the Biden agenda and the Biden administration.

He said that’s about to change.

Biden – Xi meeting » President Biden is meeting face to face with Chinese leader Xi Jinping today.

The White House says it wants to keep lines of communication open with China in hopes of avoiding conflict in the future over Taiwan and other issues. Biden said Sunday:

BIDEN: I’ve always had straightforward discussions with him. There’s never any miscalculation about where each of us stand.

The Biden administration says it doesn’t expect any concrete agreements to come out of the meeting.

The two will meet on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit in Indonesia.

Biden Asia » President Biden met yesterday with the leaders of Japan and South Korea to, in his words, “tackle the biggest issues of our time.”

BIDEN: Today, we’ll discuss how we can strengthen our supply chains and economic resilience, and how we can preserve peace and stability across the Taiwan straits.

He said they discussed threats to the global order, which includes China, and nuclear threats from North Korea.

Biden met with the leaders at a summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Ukraine » Ukrainians are rejoicing in the city of Kherson, waving yellow-and-blue Ukrainian flags. During the Russian occupation, the national flag was contraband. One retired couple is driving around the city, flying their flag with the enthusiasm of teenagers — asking Ukrainian soldiers who liberated them to autograph it.

Moscow’s forces retreated, but left the city in rough shape, destroying infrastructure on their way out.

Many residents say Russian troops may have turned their lights off, but that has not dimmed their spirits.

AUDIO: Because now we have no electricity in the city, no water, no central supplied heating, no internet connection, but we have no Russians! And I’m extremely happy of that!

Kherson was the only provincial capital that Russia captured, seizing it in the invasion's first weeks.

Istanbul bomb » Flames and smoke rose over the heart of Istanbul on Sunday after a bomb rocked a major pedestrian avenue.

AUDIO: [Bomb]

The blast killed at least six people and wounded more than 80. The government said signs pointed to terrorism.

OKTAY: [Turkish]

Turkey’s vice president Fuat Oktay vowed to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Netanyahu » Cameras flashed in Jerusalem Sunday as Israeli President Isaac Herzog stood alongside Benjamin Netanyahu and displayed a document, officially tasking him with forming a new government.

That opens the door for his highly likely return to power.

NETANYAHU: [Hebrew]

Netanyahu vowed as prime minister to represent the interests of all Israelis, not just those who voted for his party.

NETANYAHU: [Hebrew]

The 73-year-old Netanyahu is set to return to power after a one-year hiatus. He’s already the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history.

Box office » At the weekend box office, the latest Marvel blockbuster just set a new record.

TRAILER: They came from the water. They have superhuman strength. He’s coming for the surface world. That can’t be good.

Black Panther: Wakanda Forever just scored the highest opening ever in the month of November. It hauled in $180 million dollars domestically in its opening weekend.

Another superhero flick, Black Adam, finished second with another $9 million.

I'm Kent Covington. Straight ahead: What happens if you send money to someone via MoneyGram, but they never claim the money? The Supreme Court is tackling that question.

This is The World and Everything in It.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Monday morning, November 14th, 2022 and you’re listening to The World and Everything in It! Good morning. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. It’s time for Legal Docket, where we cover every single oral argument heard this term by the U.S. Supreme Court. You listen every Monday between now and the end of the term, and you’ll know something about everything.

Today, three cases.

First, what happens when you send money to someone via MoneyGram and that someone doesn’t claim it?

It’s hard to believe that happens, but it does.

Moneygram’s the second biggest money transfer company in the world. It makes it easy to send or receive money for a small fee. Even if you don’t have a bank account.

But, again, what about the money that goes unclaimed? And the address of the sender or recipient remains unknown? Where does the money go? Who gets it?

REICHARD: That’s where the common law doctrine of “escheatment” comes in. Escheatment is the right of the state to take ownership of unclaimed property. It’s useful to wrap things up so property isn’t in limbo forever.

With MoneyGram orders, we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars that go unclaimed for myriad reasons. And that’s what the fight is over.

With MoneyGram headquartered in Delaware, that state claims the money. It’s been this way for years! Lawyer Neil Katyal argued predictability is good. To do otherwise?

KATYAL: …that is incredibly damaging and destabilizing to the financial sector because this has all been around and done a certain way since 1974.

EICHER: The states suing Delaware say: Really, so keep doing something because we’ve done it for 48 years?

Thirty state governments argue that’s not an argument.

Different kinds of unclaimed property are treated differently. For instance, bank accounts, insurance proceeds, and other money transfers.

REICHARD: The law in this case has a very long name: The federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Check Act, the F-D-A-M-O-T-C-A. Even the initialism doesn’t help much, so the lawyers just call it “the FDA.” Congress passed the FDA in 1974. Here’s the lawyer for the 30 states, Nicholas Bronni. You’ll hear him use the term “instruments.” He’s talking about financial instruments.

BRONNI: That statute says that where addresses aren't typically kept for a class of instruments, those instruments escheat to the state of purchase. Now, 50 years later, Delaware claims that it's entitled to the exact same sort of windfall that led to the enactment of the FDA. To justify that, it argues that the FDA doesn't cover instruments that function precisely like other money orders but are marketed differently. But marketing strategies do not define commercial instruments and they don't justify $250 million windfalls.

Part of the problem is that that law, court opinions, and common law don’t neatly line up.

In this exchange with Bronni, here’s Justice Samuel Alito trying to distinguish one financial instrument from another.

ALITO: How about a prepaid cash card? Some grandparents always used to send their grandchildren a MoneyGram -- a MoneyGram for Christmas. And now they want to become more modern, so they send them a prepaid Visa cash card.

BRONNI: Not covered either as a money order or a similar written instrument because it has to have a named payee, and gift cards do not have named payees.

ALITO: How about a gift certificate that does have a named payee?

One tricky aspect here is that the MoneyGrams aren’t labeled money orders. The top of a MoneyGram just says “receive money” or “send money.” So Delaware argues because the FDA requires a label saying quote-unquote “money order,” it should win.

You’ve heard the saying, “If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it must be a duck?” Justice Clarence Thomas asked something similar of lawyer Katyal for Delaware:

THOMAS: What if, tomorrow morning they simply stamp the top of these, the two disputed instruments, "money order," "commercial money order"? Would that solve your problem?

KATYAL: So, Justice Thomas, that would -- if they changed the label, we do think that it would mean it's not a money order or traveler's check. So we do think you look to the label for that.

But they’re not labeled that way. So Katyal suggested this problem is better solved elsewhere:

KATYAL: The safe thing to do is what you've done in case after case, which is to say, if we're concerned about equity, that's something for Congress. It's something for the states. It's not for this Court.

Unclaimed property is Delaware’s third biggest revenue source. So it stands to lose a lot if it doesn’t win here. I think it had better brace for that outcome: a Special Master report concluded the money should go to the state where the money instrument was purchased.

Next, two cases couched in criminal law.

Jones v Hendrix asks how an inmate can challenge his conviction years later, after the rules of evidence change in his favor.

EICHER: Here’s the background. More than two decades ago, a jury found Marcus DeAngelo Jones guilty of possessing a firearm as a felon, among other charges.

Later, the Supreme Court changed what the government must prove: that an offender not only possessed a gun but also knew he had the legal status of “felon.” Two proofs in order to convict.

But back when Jones was tried, that wasn’t the requirement.

So now Jones wants to challenge his conviction because under the new rules, he could be found innocent.

REICHARD: I am going to spare you the technicalities—because my eyes glazed over and I can’t imagine what it’d do to your ears.

There are many technicalities.

EICHER: Mary, you’re kind. The legal question is by what procedural vehicle can Jones bring his challenge?

In Justice Alito’s question to the government lawyer, he looked for a bright-line rule for trial court judges to follow. He mentions “habeas.” As in habeas corpus, the legal protection from unlawful imprisonment.

ALITO: Do you -- do you have any concern about the complexity of the rule that you are advocating?...Are you concerned that every federal prisoner who wants to bring a successive motion is going to claim that this falls within the traditional scope of habeas, and this would be an escape clause that would be invoked again and again and again, and all the district judges are going to have to analyze the traditional scope of habeas to see whether the claim actually falls within that?

Inmates’ rights versus the convenience of the government. Put that way—and lots of media put it that way—Justice Alito took heavy criticism.

But it’s a common concern often raised in Supreme Court cases: whether the system can handle the work put on it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on inmate Jones:

SOTOMAYOR: …okay, there is no way to look at what they did as fitting the statutory terms that have now been described by this Court. There's no inference that could be drawn from the evidence that they did it. They're completely innocent. You’re suggesting that wouldn’t create a fifth and eighth amendment problem?

REICHARD: Bottom line is the court must sort out conflicting laws that try to balance judicial efficiency with protecting the rights of prisoners.

Our final case today arises from death row in Arizona. In 2005, a jury convicted John Cruz of capital murder. Under state law, he could have received either the death penalty or life without parole.

Cruz wanted the jury to be told that if it didn’t give him the death penalty, he would never be eligible for parole. He cited a 1994 Supreme Court decision called Simmons that gave defendants the right to instruct the jury that way. The rule helped remove inferences a jury might make about a defendant’s future danger to society.

EICHER: But the jury wasn’t instructed that way. Now Arizona asks the Supreme Court to uphold this death sentence as consistent with state practice.

Its lawyer, Chief Deputy Attorney General Joseph Kanefield, argued against what he called endless attempts by criminals to avoid responsibility:

KANEFIELD: On May 26, 2003, the Petitioner murdered Tucson Police Officer Patrick Hardesty in the line of duty by shooting him five times at point-blank range. He comes here today on appeal of a successive state post-conviction judgment to obtain a new penalty phase so that he can request the parole ineligibility instructions under Simmons v. South Carolina, a case which predated his trial by over a decade.

REICHARD: Besides, Cruz didn’t raise this issue in his first appeal. So, too late now.

Cruz’s lawyer pounded on his strongest case: that Arizona violated Supreme Court precedent. Here’s Neil Katyal:

KATYAL: In 2005, John Cruz was sentenced to death. The judge instructed jurors that, without a death sentence, Cruz would face quote, "life imprisonment with possibility of parole." The judge did so despite this Court's decision 11 years earlier in Simmons. Cruz's jury labored under a seriously wrong idea. Indeed, the jury foreman the very next day said: "We wanted a reason to be lenient, and many of us would have rather voted for life, but we were not given an option to vote for life in prison without the possibility of parole."

I counted at least five justices sympathetic to that side. Here’s Justice Elena Kagan, citing that earlier Simmons precedent:

KAGAN: I think Kafka would have loved this. Cruz loses his Simmons claims on direct appeal because the Arizona courts say point-blank Simmons never applied in Arizona. And then he loses the next time around because the Arizona courts say Simmons always applies.

EICHER: In 2016, the Supreme Court in another case called Lynch directly told the Arizona courts to comply with Simmons.

But Arizona’s Supreme Court again said no, on grounds that nothing that significant had changed. Listen to Kanefield explain that:

KANEFIELD: The Arizona Supreme Court's holding is grounded in the core principle of finality and is adequate and an independent state ground for its judgment. Under the rule, Arizona's indisputable interest in finality of criminal convictions can only yield to a claim based on those rare decisions announcing a new rule of law or a significant statutory or constitutional amendment. Here, Petitioner did not make that showing.

REICHARD: Kanefield downplayed how significant the change in the law really was. Several justices seemed to dispute that characterization.

And Justice Elena Kagan put it this way:

KAGAN: It sounds like you're thumbing your nose at us.

If Cruz prevails, Arizona would have to give new sentencing hearings to about three dozen inmates where the jury would hear about their ineligibility for parole.

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 for our weekly conversation on business markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. David is head of the wealth management firm, the Bahnson group. And he is here now, David, good morning to you.

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

EICHER: All right. Well, let's begin with the economic news of the week. Again, it could be any number of stories: the CPI fell once again, it's still high, but it has been trending down since the summer; the October CPI Consumer Price Index dropped below eight to 7.7% versus last October ,yet a strong rally in the markets on Wall Street; the biggest gain for the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Nasdaq indexes in two years. We also had an election. But, David, your pick on top story of the week?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, I think in the markets and the economy, the drubbing that the Republicans took in the election is not really much of a story. The fact that the CPI number came in lower than expected, that you had your fifth month in a row of goods inflation going down, that, even with energy and food prices going higher than the overall inflation rate, came down. It caused the bond market to have its biggest rally day I've ever seen, as yields dropped significantly in anticipation that, okay, that long awaited pivot may actually be here. What's called the ‘terminal rate’ for Fed Funds dropped 20 points, and the terminal rate is that rate that people expect it to max out at. And so whether people are looking at what they expect the federal funds rate to be in December, or January, or March or June, all of those different levels all dropped together about 20 to 25 basis points, meaning about a quarter of a percentage point at once. And so that was the big economic story of the week. And then it caused an absolutely violent rally in stocks and bonds. And then that rally was extended, quite surprisingly, another day into Friday. So you just had really a big day for risk takers last week.

EICHER: Okay, well, let's go straight to questions from our listeners.

JOSH: My name is Josh from Dallas, Texas. My question is about personal finance about investing in investment vehicles on a Roth IRA. Should I wait for the stock market to bottom out? Or should I invest in it now and take the losses in the near term? Thanks.

Okay. Question of timing, David, invest now or wait for an more advantageous time?

BAHNSEN: Well, yeah, the premise of the question, if one knew when the stock market was going to bottom, then of course, you should wait, that would be a wonderful thing. But I assume that this young man, like most of us, including myself, don't have a crystal ball. So by definition, there is no way to ever wait for the bottom because one never knows when that is. Your job as investors to put money to work to start compounding for the future. And the up and down volatility should never be something that keeps one away from going into investments that have up and down volatility. And so it is the very unknowability of when the bottom is that requires one to develop an intelligent, thoughtful discipline plan that accounts for their tolerance of up and down volatility. And when people are worried about stocks going lower, it often makes sense to deploy part of the money at once and then average the rest in over time. But this notion of guessing when a bottom is coming, or when it's been achieved is really very dangerous. And it opens up human emotion to the worst thing that can happen in investing, which is regret. Then one realizes, Oh, I missed the bottom. And now the markets up 1000s of points and then I'm gonna sit and wait for it to come again.

EICHER: Okay, our next question comes from Brian Stolarczyk. He is senior pastor at Lutheran Church of the cross in Port Charlotte, Florida. He has a question for you about exchange traded funds. ETFs. He writes, how his investing in ETFs economically and or theologically distinct from investing in mutual funds or the stock of individual companies? Investing in the stock of a company or a pool of company stock via mutual funds seems to be an investment in human productivity and creativity. But as I'm reading the fine print of ETFs, the individual investor does not actually own or invest in a share of the company or the stock. Therefore, economically and theologically, what is an ETF investor purchasing? Would he or she be investing in human productivity and creativity? Or merely speculating or gambling? David, what do you say about that?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, let me clear up some of the misunderstandings in the question. An ETF and a mutual fund in this case are identical. You are investing literally in a basket that is literally invested in the shares of the underlying companies. So you in a mutual fund, and in an ETF - it's not fine print, it's the actual definition - you own a basket that owns the shares, but you don't own the shares. But it's not speculation. It's the human productivity of the underlying companies. But the controversy lately that I imagine is what he's referring to is that people realize they don't get to vote on those shares, because they don't own the actual shares. They own a basket that owns them. But as far as the investment aspect, you do own the basket that owns the companies. And so it isn't rank speculation. I just happen to believe from an investment standpoint, those who have enough money to achieve diversification by owning the individual stocks own a superior strategy. I prefer in our clients cases, we're buying individual stocks, not an ETF or mutual fund. But the flaw of the ETF and mutual fund to me, is not the fact that you don't own the individual shares. It is other structural components, you know, generally an ETF as a whole index. Generally, a mutual fund has higher fees, worse tax treatment, other things like that. But the issue about whether or not you actually are investing in human productivity, if you're using a conduit to invest in it, like an ETF or mutual fund, where you're buying individual shares, I don't think there's a difference on that category.

EICHER: And our last question today from Aaron Bradley Thompson.

THOMPSON: Hi, David, thank you so much for everything you do. I greatly enjoyed listening to you on The World and Everything in It. My question is a more practical one. What ideas do you think that we should adopt to improve the outcomes in the US economy? Thank you for your help.

Let me add David additional context around the question. He's looking for economic policy ideas for our public policy makers.

BAHNSEN: Yeah, so if we're talking about policies in the political sphere, that would be kind of the secondary realm of area that I most care about where I think the lowest hanging fruit to develop economic change is mostly non political. I think culturally, I've talked about, in recent episodes here with you on the podcast, my desire to see a greater theology of work, a greater understanding of human action and productivity. And those are the things I most care about us reengaging the diligence and morality of work ethic that we are losing in our society. But on the policy front, I don't think that mayors or county leaders or states and certainly Washington DC, is primarily responsible for that. What they're responsible for are things around tax policy and trade policy and, and so forth. And the biggest thing that they do to impede economic growth is spend money that requires them to take it from more productive parts of the economy. And that's my, the lowest hanging fruit is the government needs to spend less money, because then that would leave more resources in the private economy, that would be more productively spent. But why does the government spend so much money? Because you have a large government? Why do we have a large government? Because we have poor self government? So the greatest thing we can do to improve government policy around economic administration is to have a more self governed responsible, morally virtuous population. And then that really leads to higher self government which leads to lower federal government, which leads to lower expenditures, which leads to more money in the economy being put to productive use. That's the basic syllogism of how I approach government relationship to the economy.

EICHER: Okay, David, that is our time for today. Maybe you have a question for David Bahnsen, too. Just email us at feedback at World and everything.com. I will be happy to summarize your question for you or if you'd like to put it in your own words in your own voice. Just make a voice memo recording and email the file, same address: feedback at World and Everything.com David Bahnsen is founder, managing partner and Chief Investment Officer of the Bahnsen group. His personal website is Bahnsen.com. You spell David's last name B-A-H-N-S-E-N, Bahnsen.com. Thank you to Joshua Felty, Brian Stolarczyk and Aaron Bradley Thompson for your questions. Give us your question. And you may hear David answer it in an upcoming episode of The World and Everything in It. David, talk to you next week. I am grateful for your time. Thank you.

BAHNSEN: It's my pleasure. Thanks, Nick.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Today is Monday, November 14th. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: And I’m Mary Reichard. Next up, the WORLD History Book.

Today, the anniversary of a revolutionary American invention. And the death of a relatively unknown English chaplain who’s since become a household name all around the world. But first, remembering a German mathematician. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER, REPORTER: We begin today with November 15th, 16-30. German mathematician and astronomer Johann Kepler, dies at age 58.

As a devout Christian, Kepler believed that God’s creation was orderly and could be understood and explained through rigorous observation. He wrote:

KEPLER: Those laws [of nature] are within the grasp of the human mind; God wanted us to recognize them by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts.

Today, Kepler is most remembered for his laws of planetary motion. He was convinced that the prevailing models of his day were incorrect. The Ptolemaic system had the earth as the center of the universe with the Sun, Moon and other Planets revolving around it. The other popular model based on the work of Copernicus, had the Sun at the center, and the planets revolving around it, but both models relied on perfectly circular orbits and constant velocity.

However, well known observations contradicted these explanations—the most notable being Mars. The red planet moves from west to east most nights, but every few years it seems to reverse directions for a few months before returning to its eastern path. This variation couldn’t be explained by either model.

So Kepler challenged a number of fundamental assumptions and soon figured out that the planets orbited the sun in elliptical patterns and at varying speeds— depending on their proximity to the sun. Suddenly, most of the observational oddities had viable explanations.

Kepler’s work was not immediately accepted, and he died before seeing many of his ideas fully embraced, but many later scientists credit Kepler as one of the founders of modern science. That includes Sir Isaac Newton, who used Kepler’s discoveries to explain universal gravitation.

Next, November 15th, 19-17. Oswald Chambers dies while in Egypt during World War I. His widow Gertrude, spends the rest of her life compiling his notes, lectures, and sermons into books—the most popular is the daily devotional: My Utmost for His Highest.

Here’s a clip from the official audiobook version of the classic devotional from January 1st, and it’s where the book gets its name:

AUDIO: [CLIP OF MY UTMOST FOR HIS HIGHEST]

Since its first publication in 1927, more than 13 million copies have sold. Christians all over the world rely on the ageless wisdom of Chamber’s reflections to begin or end each day. Cal Thomas, Joni Eareckson Tada and many other influential leaders credit the book as being crucial to their daily walk of faith.

In 2017, Wheaton College hosted a conference celebrating Chamber’s life. Macy Halford wrote a memoir of the devotional, and was the closing speaker.

HALFORD: When I read it, I feel something much more than relief, I feel excited, I feel ready. And that’s why My Utmost is truly a timeless book. Why at the end of each year, finally having finished it, so many of us close the cover, only to decide the next day, to flip back to the beginning and start all over again.

And finally, we end with November 14th, 1967—American physicist Theodore Maiman is granted a patent for the world's first laser.

MAIMAN: A whole bunch of reporters gathered around me and this was my first experience with the media, and a man asked me: “Dr. Maiman, are you willing to say this couldn't be used as a weapon?” and I said “no” and he said “that’s all I wanted to know.” The headline said “L.A. Man Discovers Science Fiction Death Ray” [laughter] that was the headline.

Maiman’s laser had been successfully tested 7 years earlier on May 16th, 1960. At the time, many laboratories were racing to produce the first working model.

MAIMAN: Here’s the polished cylinder, the flash lamp, etc.

Patent number 3-3-5-3-1-1-5-A explains that “laser” is short for “light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation.” The first applications included range finding for weapons, cutting diamonds, and in 1969 it even measured the exact distance of the moon to within 3 centimeters.

Once considered a novelty, hardly an industry exists today that doesn’t rely on lasers in some way. High-speed internet is the primary example. But lasers also are critical in many entertainment, manufacturing and military innovations.

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

NICK EICHER, HOST: Tomorrow: a first-hand account of the border crisis from the perspective of a rancher.

Plus, digging deeper into Michigan’s newly approved proposition 3 on abortion.

And ministry to surfers along the coast of Australia.

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: Humble yourselves…under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. (1 Peter 5:6-7 ESV)

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.