10.13.25 Colorado’s counseling law at the Supreme Court, the widening fiscal gap in Washington, and the creation of Narnia

Summary

The World and Everything In It

Episode Date: October 13, 2025
Main Topics: Supreme Court case on Colorado’s counseling law, U.S. fiscal and trade policy, and the 75th anniversary of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

---

Episode Overview

This episode explores three main areas:

1. The Supreme Court's examination of Colorado's law regulating counseling for minors related to gender identity.
2. Economic turmoil in Washington, including U.S.-China trade tensions and the widening federal budget gap.
3. Reflections on the creation and legacy of C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, celebrating its 75th anniversary.

The hosts provide field reporting, legal analysis, financial insights, and a historical essay, all grounded in a biblical worldview and delivered in their familiar, thoughtful style.

---

Segment 1: Legal Docket – Colorado’s Counseling Law at the Supreme Court

[07:22–18:13]

Main Theme

A challenge to Colorado’s 2019 law prohibiting licensed therapists from offering so-called “conversion therapy” to minors seeks to clarify the line between regulation of professional conduct and unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination—especially when speech is itself the form of treatment.

Key Discussion Points

• Background of the Law:

  • Colorado’s SOGI law (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) forbids therapists from helping minors, even with parental consent, to “get comfortable with the body that God made for them” ([07:34]).
  • The law only permits counseling that affirms a child’s desire to transition ([07:40]).

• First Amendment Challenge:

  • Kaylee Chiles, a Christian therapist, argues counseling is “nothing but speech” and the law violates free speech rights ([08:08]).
  • Her attorney, Jim Campbell, asserts:

    “This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious, and scientific questions.” ([08:29])

  • The question before the Supreme Court: When therapy is talk—can the government regulate which words may and may not be spoken?

• Court’s Concerns and Arguments:

  • Justice Sotomayor:
    • Raised the issue of no actual prosecution under the law—asking if there’s a “credible threat” to free speech ([09:02]).
    • Recalled Colorado’s prior Supreme Court losses (Masterpiece Cakeshop, 303 Creative), where compelled speech was struck down.
  • Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson:
    • Explored whether talk therapy equals medical treatment and whether that categorization alters First Amendment protections ([09:51]).
    • Pressed on distinction between speech and conduct, regardless of treatment type ([10:07]).
  • Colorado’s Defense (Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson):
    • Framed the law as regulating a “narrow category within a licensed profession” ([10:49]).
    • Argued states can bar “ineffective, harmful treatment just because it’s delivered through words”—relies on medical consensus ([10:58]).
    • Criticized lack of evidence for conversion therapy’s effectiveness.
  • Alito’s Historical Challenge:
    • Justice Alito pointed out that “medical consensus” can be politicized, citing past errors like compulsory sterilization and Down syndrome institutionalization ([12:11], [13:14]).
    • Noted:

      “Isn’t it a fact that it’s happened in the past? I think that three generations of idiots are enough.” ([12:43])

  • Hypotheticals and Distinctions:
    • Justice Sotomayor proposed an analogy with dietitians discouraged from encouraging anorexics—Campbell argued it’s a false equivalence ([13:59–14:24]).
  • Professional Speech and Viewpoint Discrimination:
    • Colorado asserted licensing transforms speech into professional conduct, but the Court has previously rejected this—Justice Barrett pressed the state on this argument ([15:18]).
    • Justice Alito directly asked if the law is “blatant viewpoint discrimination” ([16:41]).
    • Justice Kagan appeared to agree:

      “That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination.” ([17:05])

• Expert Commentary:

  • Eugene Volek (First Amendment scholar) warned:

    “For a court to say this isn’t really speech, it’s just conduct, just sounds to me like an argument by relabeling. And I wanted to urge the Supreme Court to resist that path.” ([17:27])

Notable Quotes

• Jim Campbell (attorney):

  “Can a state pick a side? I want to be very clear. It’s not that the medical community says we just don’t know. It’s that there are competing strands.” ([15:18])

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett (to state’s lawyer):

  “Just answer the question.” ([16:09])

• Mary Reichert (host, on likely outcome):

  “I predict free speech will win out here… A unanimous vote would be unifying, but more likely we’ll have one or two liberal justices in dissent.” ([17:54])

---

Segment 2: The Monday Money Beat – Trade Wars and Federal Budget

[18:58–29:04]

Main Theme

Renewed U.S.-China trade hostilities and sobering fiscal news as Washington grapples with another government shutdown and an ever-widening federal budget deficit.

Key Discussion Points

• U.S.-China Rare Earths Showdown:

  • China announced new controls (not outright bans) on rare earth exports—essential for tech and defense ([20:15]).
  • In response, President Trump threatened a 100% tariff on Chinese goods starting November 1, as well as new export controls on U.S. software ([19:18]).
  • Financial analyst David Bonson notes:

    “China putting out that word about the requirement of a license… undermined that appearance of a [U.S.] victory. It spoke to China’s leverage in this matter.” ([20:15])

  • Both sides use deadlines (China: Dec 1; U.S.: Nov 1) to “jockey for a slightly better position,” and there’s potential for “diplomatic off-ramps” ([23:16]).

• Analysis of Leverage:

  • Bonson argues U.S. leverage “is not what it once was” and that China’s dominance in rare earths is a structural reality ([20:15], [24:07]).
  • Expects further negotiation and no drastic change in fundamentals over the next 30–45 days.

• Federal Budget Woes:

  • The Wall Street Journal’s analysis shows: little has changed from Biden to Trump; Congress keeps spending more than revenue, regardless of party ([24:32]).
  • Bonson calls it a “bipartisan shame,” noting:

    “All of it is shameful… all we’re talking about is whether the deficit’s gonna be a trillion and a half or two trillion. I mean, these are just barbarically bad numbers.” ([24:32])

• Government Shutdown Tactics:

  • Discussion of Budget Director Russell Vogt’s aggressive use of “reductions in force” (layoffs) and project freezes to both cut inefficiencies and increase pressure on Democrats ([26:55]).
  • Bonson weighs motives:

    “I don’t think what Russ is doing is necessarily leverage in trying to bring the shutdown to an end… He genuinely believes he can find some inefficiencies… But I also believe some of it is extracting pain.” ([26:55])

  • Political calculations at play; Obamacare subsidies are expected to be the “key negotiation” for ending the shutdown ([28:52]).

Notable Quotes

• David Bonson:

  “The fact that we’ve gone six months where it’s been a pretty straight line of progress… and so the fact that there has been a sort of pump fake here isn’t a surprise to me.” ([20:15])

• “These are sort of Rahm Emanuel ‘never let a crisis go to waste’ opportunities.” ([26:55])

---

Segment 3: World History Book – The Creation and Legacy of Narnia

[29:42–37:23]

Main Theme

Celebrating 75 years since the publication of C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, with a look at its origins, meaning, and enduring influence.

Key Discussion Points

• Origins of the Story:

  • Inspired by a “mental picture of a faun carrying parcels and an umbrella in a snowy wood” that C.S. Lewis had at 16.
  • “Once Aslan came bounding into it… he pulled the whole story together” ([32:27]).

• Unique Approach:

  • Lewis saw Narnia not as allegory but as a “supposal”—what if Christ came into a fantasy world?
    • Joe Rigney:

      “Suppose the Son of God became incarnate in a fantasy world full of talking animals the way He really became incarnate in this world as a human. What would that be like?” ([34:23])

• Intent and Impact:

  • Lewis believed fairy tales could “steal past the watchful dragons” of religious obligation—presenting gospel truth in an imaginative mode ([33:55]).
  • Themes of mercy, sacrifice, and redemption are central; Aslan’s death for Edmund highlights Christian motifs ([35:02]).
  • Effect on Lucy Barfield, the real-life dedicatee, who found comfort and meaning in Narnia throughout a difficult life ([35:35]).

• Narnia’s Enduring Appeal:

  • Despite criticism from Tolkien, its storytelling “mishmash” is a feature, not a bug ([33:12]).
  • The seven Narnia books have sold over 115 million copies in 60 languages.
  • Final passage read by Michael York:

    “Once a king in Narnia, always a king in Narnia. … if the professor was right, it was only the beginning of the adventures of Narnia.” ([36:50])

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• CS Lewis’s Dedication (to Lucy Barfield):

  “Someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again.” ([30:32])

• Joe Rigney on why the books endure:

  “…[themes of] glad-hearted sacrifice… that winter is now past and the spring has come and forgiveness is offered and redemption. That’s fundamental…and one of the reasons why it resonates so strongly 75 years later.” ([35:02])

• Lucy Barfield’s reflection, as relayed by her brother:

  “What I could not do for myself, the dedication did for me. My godfather gave me a greater gift than I had imagined.” ([35:35])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Colorado SOGI Law Supreme Court Case: [07:22–18:13]
• U.S.-China Trade War & Federal Budget: [18:58–29:04]
• 75th Anniversary of Narnia: [29:42–37:23]

---

Tone and Style

The episode maintains WORLD Radio’s thoughtful, balanced, biblically-informed tone, blending sharp legal and policy analysis with literary and historical appreciation. The hosts and guests provide context, critical questioning, and personal insights.

---

Conclusion

This episode gives listeners a comprehensive survey of urgent legal, economic, and cultural developments through the lens of sound journalism and Christian worldview. Supreme Court oral arguments over the limits of governmental power over speech resonate alongside analysis of fiscal irresponsibility in Washington and the abiding wonder of Narnia’s world—drawing connections between law, economy, and imagination.

Transcript

[Mary Reichert]

Good morning. Today on legal docket regulating professional conduct or censoring speech, a showdown at the Supreme Court.

[Jim Campbell]

Can a state pick a side? It's not that the medical community says we just don't know. It's that there are competing strands.

[Nick Eicher]

Also today, the Monday money beat a new skirmish in the trade wars and the world history book marking 75 years of the lion, the witch and the wardrobe.

[Joe Rigney]

Suppose that the son of God became incarnate in a fantasy world full of talking animals in the way that he had really become incarnate in this world as a human. What would that be like?

[Mary Reichert]

It's Monday, October 13th, Columbus Day. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.

[Mary Reichert]

Time now for the news with Kent Covington.

[Kent Covington]

Sounds from hostages square in Tel Aviv as the crowd gathered there received word of the first seven Israeli hostages set free this morning. They were released into the custody of the Red cross at around 8am local time. Their health condition was reportedly normal. By initial assessments. Those seven Israelis held by the Hamas terror group for two years were the first of 20 surviving captives set to be returned home as part of a ceasefire deal. Alana Zaicik is a relative of Israeli hostage David Cuneo. She says David's young kids would finally get to know their father.

[Jim Campbell]

Their initial reaction to him coming home is has been shocked. You know, they were in captivity at three years old and now they're five. So they celebrated two birthdays, got their.

[David Bonson]

Dad and in a way, under the.

[Kent Covington]

Terms of the deal, after the hostages were free, Israel would release about 2,000 Palestinian detainees and receive around 28 dead hostages. Many Palestinians are also celebrating as the gunfire stops and humanitarian aid surges into the war ravaged Gaza Strip. President Trump is set to visit Israel and Egypt today, days after Hamas accepted phase one of his administration's peace plan. And President Trump is warning Russia that he may send Ukraine long range Tomahawk missiles if Moscow does not send settle its war there soon. He told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday.

[David Bonson]

I might say, look, if this war is not going to get settled, I'm going to send them Tomahawks. I may said that the Tomahawk is an incredible weapon, very offensive weapon and honestly, Russia does not need that.

[Kent Covington]

Moscow expressed, quote, extreme concern over that possibility. Trump's comments came after a phone call earlier Sunday with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. President Trump is also trying to open the door for more talks with China after threatening to slap a 100% tariff on Chinese goods beginning next month. That all follows Beijing's surprise decision to tighten export controls on rare earth minerals, vital for cell phones, electric cars and military equipment. The president remarked on Friday, we said.

[David Bonson]

Where did that come from? It was just, that was out of the blue, right?

[Kent Covington]

U.S. trade Representative Jamison Greer says Washington quickly reached out to arrange a call last week, but declined to take it. But Trump over the weekend remarked on social media his words, don't worry about China. It will all be fine. Highly respected Chinese President Xi Jinping had a bad moment. The USA wants to help China, not hurt it. The federal government shutdown is now nearly two weeks old and still no end in sight. The top Democrat in the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, says there will be no deal to reopen the government if.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Republicans continue to refuse to extend the Affordable Care act tax credits.

[Kent Covington]

Jeffrey says Democrats are fighting to keep health care costs from going up for many Americans. President Trump and GOP leaders at the Capitol say they are willing to negotiate on Obamacare, tax credits and other concerns, but only if and when Democrats agree to pass a clean funding bill to reopen the government. And House Speaker Mike Johnson we have hundreds of ideas literally on the table to fix health care to make it.

[Paul Butler]

More affordable for the American people, to.

[Kent Covington]

Make access more available and to increase, increase the quality of care. Meantime, Vice President J.D. vance is warning of deeper federal cuts the longer the shutdown goes on. Hundreds of thousands are already furloughed, and in a court filing on Friday, the White House said more than 4,000 employees would soon be fired. But the White House and the Pentagon have shifted emergency funds to ensure military paychecks continue without interruption. Powerful winds and heavy rains are still battering much of the east coast this morning as a nor' easter affects numerous states from the Carolinas to New England. Frank Pereira with the National Weather Service warned on Sunday that in some areas the worst was yet to come.

[David Bonson]

We are expecting wind gusts in excess of 50 miles an hour near the coast especially, and with that, there is a significant potential for scattered power outages and damages resulting from those winds.

[Kent Covington]

New Jersey declared a state of emergency over the weekend, where forecasters predicted up to 5 inches of rain in some parts. Authorities also placed New York City, Long island and part of Westchester county under a coastal flood warning and wind advisory. Authorities in rural Tennessee are combing through the charred remains of an explosives plant, trying to determine the cause of a blast over the weekend that killed more than a dozen people. Umphreys County Sheriff Chris Davis. We have notified all 16 families of those people that we feel was involved.

[David Bonson]

In this situation, this tragedy.

[Kent Covington]

The explosion was felt for miles and left a smoldering wreck of twisted metal and burned out vehicles at the Accurate Energetic Systems plant. That is a munitions plant that has supplied and researched explosives for the military. ATF Special Agent Tyra Cunningham said authorities are dedicated to ensuring that if criminal.

[Jim Campbell]

Activity is involved, those responsible will be held accountable and if it was accidental, that lessons have been learned to prevent a tragedy like this from ever happening again.

[Kent Covington]

Investigators are combing through the charred property foot by foot, searching for possible evidence. I'm Kent Covington. And straight ahead, a free speech showdown at the Supreme Court on legal docket plus, the Monday Money beat looks at a new skirmish in the trade wars. This is the world and everything in it.

[Nick Eicher]

It's the world and everything in it. For this 13th day of October 2025. We are so glad you've joined. Good morning. I'm Nick Icker.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichert. Time now for legal docket. Last week, the Showdown at the U.S. supreme Court over what is speech versus what is conduct between a licensed counselor and a client who is a child.

[Nick Eicher]

Six years ago, Colorado passed what's known as a SOGI law, S O G I. It's an acronym for sexual orientation and gender identity. This particular SOGI law bars licensed counselors from performing any counseling that has the aim of helping young people get comfortable with the body that God made for them that is unlawful. What's lawful in Colorado is for a counselor to affirm a child's desire to be the opposite sex. Colorado calls that simply regulating professional conduct.

[Mary Reichert]

Kaylee Chiles is a licensed therapist and a Christian. She says the ban violates her free speech rights under the First Amendment because her work is nothing but speech. So the question is, when words themselves are the treatment, does the government get to decide which words to say?

[Nick Eicher]

Jim Campbell represents Chiles.

[Jim Campbell]

This law prophylactically bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions. The state of Colorado would allow a 12 year old without their parents consent to enter into counseling that would go the opposite way on these issues of gender identity and sexual orientation. But if that same 12 year old, with their parents consent, want to seek counseling in the opposite direction, the kind that my client would provide, they are not able to do that.

[Nick Eicher]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the argument that nobody's been prosecuted under this law. In her view, there has to be a credible threat of prosecution to count as chilling speech. But that argument really has never carried the day. Colorado has already lost two high profile First Amendment cases at the Supreme Court involving Soji. In 2018, the court found in favor of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop. And two years ago, the justices again ruled that Colorado could not compel a website designer to create speech that she disagreed with. Justice Sotomayor dissented in both of those cases.

[Mary Reichert]

Even so, the liberal justices focused less on free speech and more on professional regulations. Listen to this exchange between Campbell and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

[Jim Campbell]

I'm just unclear as to whether or not you're categorizing her therapy as a medical treatment.

I don't believe that we are categorizing it that way, but I don't think it matters because the First Amendment depends on the difference between speech and conduct, not on the difference between treatment and non treatment.

[Mary Reichert]

Justice Jackson kept at it.

[Jim Campbell]

I guess it seems very odd that you could have two scenarios where you have two licensed professionals both attempting to provide treatment to an individual, say for the same issue that, you know, the person says, I'd like to live consistently with my biological sex. I feel that I'm not doing that. I'd like your help. Medical professional A treats that quote, unquote condition with medication. Medical professional B treats that condition with talk therapy.

[Mary Reichert]

The counselor's lawyer responded, these are two different fact scenarios dependent upon what the patient or the client desires.

[Nick Eicher]

Defending the law, Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson the state argues the law only regulates a narrow category within a licensed profession.

[Jim Campbell]

A health care provider cannot be free to violate the standard of care just because they are using words. And a state cannot be required to let its vulnerable young people waste their time and money on an ineffective, harmful treatment just because that treatment is delivered through words. Petitioner asked you to enjoin a bipartisan law passed by 25 different states, but she did not put one single piece of evidence into the record. Not a single expert, not a single study, not a single mental health professional willing to endorse conversion therapy. And there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

[Nick Eicher]

The state leaned on medical consensus and professional standards to define what's safe for patients. But the counselor side countered that the studies the state relies on are flawed based on activist assumptions, not sound evidence.

[Jim Campbell]

All of those studies relied on biased sampling, self reporting. They conflated aversive techniques with voluntary counseling. They did not isolate licensed counselors and they did not purport, even in their own study, to prove causation.

[Nick Eicher]

Justice Samuel Alito looked to history to show that Medical professionals aren't always as authoritative as the state claims.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Your argument depends very heavily on the standard of care, which I take it, is defined by medical consensus. Is that correct?

[Jim Campbell]

That's correct.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

I mean, the medical consensus is usually very reasonable and it's very important. But have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized, has been taken over by ideology?

[Jim Campbell]

We have no facts about that in this case, but I wouldn't disagree that that's possible. And I think that's a really.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Isn't it a fact that it's happened in the past? I think that three generations of idiots are enough.

[Mary Reichert]

Justice Alito's reference is to Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who once offered the view that three generations of imbeciles are enough. It's from a 1927 case called Buck v. Bell, which upheld a Virginia law that allowed compulsory sterilization of people the state deemed feeble minded. That was the consensus at the time. Justice Alito gave another example of medical consensus.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

Was there a time when there were many, many medical professionals who thought that every child born with down syndrome should be immediately put in an institution?

[Jim Campbell]

I don't know that, you, Honor.

[Mary Reichert]

Backed into a logical corner. The lawyer for Colorado let her lawyer instinct kick in. She skirted Justice Alito's historical analogy and reframed state law as modern and evidence based. If she hadn't, then her opponent surely would use it to his advantage, as in see the danger in state controlled professional speech. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. Justice Sotomayor took a more tenuous route, posing a hypothetical about eating disorders. But Campbell spotted the false equivalence. Listen to this.

[David Bonson]

A state tells dietitians, don't encourage anorexic patients to engage in more restricted eating. All right? I don't think the state has to provide a study to show that that advice is not sound.

[Jim Campbell]

Do you agree, Justice Sotomayor? I think that might be true, but that's because that kind of hypothetical is very different than what we have here.

[David Bonson]

So explain the difference.

[Jim Campbell]

If what the state is getting at is a statement by a professional that's telling someone to harm their body, that that's a different category.

[Mary Reichert]

The state nimbly tried to distinguish the facts here as special context.

[Jim Campbell]

If you go to a life coach or you go to someone else, they're not licensed by the state. You're not expecting them to be complying with standards of care. You have a different expectation when you're going to see a licensed healthcare professional who owes you fiduciary duties, Your expectations are different. You're expecting information that is complying with.

[Nick Eicher]

The standard of care, arguing that the requirement of a license transforms speech into professional conduct. But that's a tough sell given that the high court has already rejected the idea that professional speech has less First Amendment protection. And that led Justice Amy Coney Barrett to press the state's lawyer. Was Colorado's position really viewpoint discrimination?

[Jim Campbell]

Can a state pick a side? I want to be very clear. It's not that the medical community says we just don't know. It's that there are competing strands in some states, like say, Tennessee, which was the stated issue in Square Metti. Pick one side, Colorado picks another side. Your position is that rational basis applies.

[Nick Eicher]

Now, that's key because rational basis is the easiest level of judicial review for a state law to survive. So score a one for Colorado. But it's a Pyrrhic victory. That position has the state walking right into a trap. Namely, the state would be saying, in essence, that even if the law is viewpoint discrimination, that's okay, which is not a strong argument. So the state hedged, saying that what really matters is the standard of care. But Justice Barrett would not be deterred.

[Jim Campbell]

Just answered that question. No, our view is that that would not be the right rule here.

[Mary Reichert]

Just answer the question.

[Paul Butler]

Yikes.

[Mary Reichert]

And when she did, it left a tougher level of scrutiny the state has to satisfy. The Supreme Court has already said content based regulation of professional speech has to meet strict scrutiny stand of judicial review. Colorado Solicitor General Stevenson must have been feeling the knot tighten. And then Justice Alito brought it all back around to stark contrasting scenarios.

[Justice Samuel Alito]

One viewpoint is the viewpoint that a minor should be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same sex attraction if that's what he or he or she wants. And the other is the viewpoint that the minor should not be able to obtain talk therapy to overcome same sex attraction, even if that is what he or she wants. Looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.

[Mary Reichert]

Justice Kagan seemed to be in vigorous agreement with him.

[David Bonson]

That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination.

[Nick Eicher]

A liberal justice and a conservative justice in agreement. So for an outside perspective, we asked Washington producer Harrison Waters to call up Eugene Volek. He's a leading authority on the First Amendment. Volek says lower courts have muddied this.

[David Bonson]

Issue, but I think it's a mistake for a court to say, as the lower court did, that this isn't really speech, it's just conduct. That just sounds to me like an argument by relabeling and I wanted to urge the Supreme Court to resist that path of just saying, this isn't speech, it's conduct.

[Nick Eicher]

If the high court accepts that logic, Volek warns that other kinds of expression could lose First Amendment protection, too.

[Mary Reichert]

I think that's highly unlikely. I do predict free speech will win out here. A unanimous vote would be unifying, but more likely we'll have one or two liberal justices in dissent. And that's this week's legal docket.

[Kent Covington]

Additional support comes from Dort University, where pre med students gain knowledge through undergraduate research and hone skills through hands on simulations. Dort Edu from his words Abiding in you, a podcast where listeners memorize Bible verses in each episode. His words abiding in you on all podcast apps and from the Masters University equipping students for lives of faithfulness to the Master Jesus Christ Masters. Edu.

[Mary Reichert]

Coming up next on THE WORLD and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.

[Nick Eicher]

It's time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonson Group, and he is here now. David, good morning to you.

[David Bonson]

Good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, trade tensions flared with China again this week. Beijing announcing sweeping new limits on rare earth exports. These are metals that are essential for everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets. And moments after that surprise announcement, President Trump hit back. He threatened a 100% tariff on Chinese goods effective November 1, along with new export controls on key US software. And by the end of the day, markets had turned a modest rally into a plunge. So analysts are saying that both sides appear to be testing leverage ahead of a possible meeting later this month between President Trump and President Xi Jinping. Now, that may not happen, and that may be part of the strategy. But David, China controls about 90% of global rare earth processing. How did we get to this point and what does that imbalance mean for American manufacturers?

[David Bonson]

Well, that is a very complicated subject. That is the subject of a lot of debate. I mean, fundamentally how things like this happen is certain countries do possess natural comparative advantages. The bigger issue is with the natural advantages in place, what countries have done to address their own needs over time. Time. It's important to say that what China announced was not limits on orders, but controls essentially requiring licenses for some of these exports. I mean, some of the very same exact things that the US has done with different products and with different trading partners. I think what really bothered the president was that it came off as sort of a flex from China. And it's been My position for some time that as we've seen the way these negotiations have been playing out between the US And China, China since April, that what the president really wants is not to limit trade with China, but to have the kind of cosmetic victory that he likes, a big headline that, you know, shows some better markets being opened, better terms and accrues to the cosmetic favor of the US And I think that China putting out that word about the requirement of a license and so forth, it kind of undermined that appearance of a victory. And it spoke to China's leverage in this matter. And then the president defaulted to what he had previously considered his leverage, which was that he was going to go put 100% tariffs on these imports from China. And I got to say I would be really surprised if China believes that the President is correct, that he has that leverage still. I don't believe China thinks that those tariffs at this point hurt them anywhere near the level that they hurt the US So we will have to see how this plays out. But I imagine that it's just going to be a bit of jockeying back and forth regarding who does have leverage and who's going to get more of a appearance of upper hand. But it's also a surprise to me that it hasn't happened earlier. I mean, the fact that we've gone six months where it's been a pretty straight line of progress in the deal in 2018 and 19, there were a lot of hems and haws and pauses and backups. And this is largely, and you saw this with the TikTok deal a month ago and other things, it's largely just kind of moved along. And so the fact that there has been a sort of pump fake here isn't a surprise to me. But what I think people need to prepare for is that it just isn't true that the US has massive leverage over China here.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, given that neither side's moves take effect right away, the Chinese set the date of December 1st, Trump November 1st. Does that kind of delay create room for a diplomatic off ramp?

[David Bonson]

There's all sorts of opportunities for off ramp. And there's, as we've seen this entire time, there's also ample opportunity to find out all the exemptions, carve outs and waivers. And so we're living in such an incredible time of sort of presidential discretion about things that it's impossible to know what will and will not play out because it's filled with caveats. But, yes, you are correct. There's plenty of time and it's all done by design. I mean, both sides are giving each other time to go churn knobs here and try to get jockey for a slightly better position. What is not going to fundamentally change in 15 days or 45 days is that China has rare earth minerals that the United States wants to and needs to buy. And that's going to be part of this ultimate transactional outcome.

[Nick Eicher]

All right, well, now let's turn to the federal budget. The Wall Street Journal analyzed the government's fiscal year. It ended September 30th. The conclusion of the Journal analysis was that not much really changed administration to administration, the early months belonging to Biden, the later months to Trump. How do you assess the year overall and the performance of the government's finances? How do you analyze it?

[David Bonson]

I analyze it by saying that it's all shameful and it doesn't matter who's president. We're dealing with budgets passed by Congress that are budgeted to spend way more money than we bring in. And that was true in the prior administration. It's true in this administration. It's true of, I think, 63 of the last 65 years or something like that. So all of it is shameful. But there are certain things that can be a bit better than expected from the vantage point of the budget, meaning better than expected collections. And there was a lot of that in the last fiscal year. The capital gain tax revenue outperformed expectations. There's been some degree of these tariff revenues that have come in. But then we've also spent more than expected in interest, expense and some other things. But yeah, when you net it all out, all we're talking about is whether or not the deficit's gonna be a trillion and a half or 2 trillion. I mean, it's these are just barbarically bad numbers.

[Nick Eicher]

Well, David, hey, before we go, let's do talk about the government shutdown. This morning we enter day 13. It's already one of the longest in recent decades. And the administration appears to be handling this one in a pretty aggressive way. I'm interested in the one guy who has become something of a focal point. That would be Budget Director Russell Vogt. Now, for a couple of years, between administrations, between Trump administrations, Russ Vogt wrote for World Opinions, and I want to go back to a piece that he did for us about the debt ceiling debate a few years ago. Of course, I know you remember that we talked about it. But in Russ column, he argued that Republicans ought to use every bit of leverage they have to impose some fiscal discipline. Well, now he's Back at the Trump omb, he is using that leverage, carrying out what he calls reductions in force. About 4,000 federal employees laid off at agencies like Treasury, Health and Human Services, Education and hud. And he's frozen billions of dollars in projects that happen to be in Democratic strongholds like New York and Chicago. Now, the stated goal is to cut waste, but the practical effect is to make the shutdown hurt and to pressure Democrats to come to the table. So, David, is this really about political leverage or is it about long term economic efficiencies?

[David Bonson]

No, I don't think that the issues that Russ is doing are necessarily leverage in trying to bring the shutdown to an end. I think that what they are is that Russ genuinely believes that he can find some inefficiencies that he can now get rid of that he normally wouldn't have had statutory authority to do. But by nature of the discretion that comes to him during a shutdown, the Democrats teed up the opportunity for him to do it. I'm sure you're right that some of it is him looking to extract pain. But I also believe some of it is fundamental that he wants to, you know, use the old Rahm Emanuel idea of not letting a crisis go to waste. These are sort of DOGE 2.0 opportunities for Russia. But, you know, again, the Democrats are confident that these types of things politically will accrue to their benefit because they'll be perceived by the public as retaliatory and unnecessarily cruel. And how the politics of it all shakes out, it's a little unknown. But you know, Nick, ultimately the way this thing's going to end is whichever side believes they need the political advantage of ending it around the subsidies from Obamacare. And that's what's most interesting is I'm pretty sure what's going to happen is the Republicans are going to give the extension of subsidies. President Trump has already kind of hinted at that. Some of the more MAGA oriented people in Congress have talked about doing that. And these are extensions that took place during the COVID era that were supposed to be temporary, that we all know never stay temporary. But my guess is that then the Republicans will do it and want to get credit for doing it. The Democrats will then want the credit that they got the Republicans to do it. And both sides will end up, you know, having their own fight about who wants to, you know, take a victory lap. But I think that subsidies around Obamacare are going to end up being the issue. And candidly, I'll be shocked if there are Republicans that hold the line here.

[Nick Eicher]

David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at the Bonson Group. He writes regularly for World opinions [e-mail] David hey, thank you. I hope you have a terrific week.

[David Bonson]

All right. Thanks so much, Nick. Good to be with you.

[Nick Eicher]

Today is Monday, October 13th. Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Iger.

[Mary Reichert]

And I'm Mary Reichard. Finally today, the world history book. 75 years ago, a simple wardrobe opened in 20 a world of talking animals, mythical creatures and a lion on the move. Here's World's Paul Butler.

[Paul Butler]

The first sentence of the lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe comes in like a lamb.

[Michael York]

Once there were four children whose names were Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy.

[Paul Butler]

C.S. lewis was a masterful storyteller, but that just might be the most uninspired sentence in all his books. However, the same cannot be said about the dedication printed on the page before it written to Lucy Barfield, daughter of fellow inkling Owen Barfield. She's believed to be the inspiration for his character bearing her name.

[Michael York]

Lewis writes this My dear Lucy, I wrote this story for you, but when I began it, I had not realized that girls grow quicker than books. As a result, you are already too old for fairy tales, and by the time it is printed and bound, you will be older still. But someday you will be old enough to start reading fairy tales again. You can then take it down from some upper shelf, dust it and tell me what you think of it.

[Paul Butler]

For the first time reader, it's a delightfully heartwarming dedication, but for those who come back to the book a second or third time, it contains more of Narnia than the story's first sentence. It's a Narnian Appleseed that becomes the portal to another world.

[Michael York]

And shortly after that, they looked into a room that was quite empty except for one big wardrobe, the sort that has a looking glass in the door.

[Paul Butler]

The lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was originally published in the United Kingdom on October 16, 1950, released a month later in the United States, introducing children to a memorable cast of characters and a land where it was always winter but never Christmas, where a lamppost seemed to have sprouted in the forest.

[Michael York]

As she stood looking at it, wondering why there was a lamppost in the middle of a wood, and wondering what to do next, she heard a pitter patter of feet coming toward her.

[Paul Butler]

In an essay on writing, Lewis explains where the idea originated. He says it all started with a mental picture of a fawn carrying parcels and an umbrella in a snowy wood. It popped into his head when he was 16 years old. He said that once he turned 40, he thought, let's try to make a story about it.

[Michael York]

And so Lucy found herself walking through the wood, arm in arm with this strange creature, as if they had known one another all their lives.

[Paul Butler]

Lewis said when he began writing, he had no idea where the story would go. But once Aslan came bounding into it, in Lewis's words, he pulled the whole story together and soon pulled the six other Narnia stories in after him.

[Michael York]

They say Aslan is on the move. None of the children knew who Aslan was any more than you do. But the moment the beaver had spoken these words, everyone felt quite different.

[Paul Butler]

The world of Narnia seems a hodgepodge of images from Lewis's life, plus fairy tale fragments he'd grown up hearing. Lewis friend and fellow Inkling J.R.R. tolkien disliked the story, but over the last 75 years, he's been outvoted.

[Joe Rigney]

The truth is, I just love them as they are, including for all of the reasons that J.R. tolkien hated them.

[Paul Butler]

Joe Rigney is fellow of Theology at New St. Andrews College and author of Live Like A Christian Discipleship. In Lewis's Chronicles.

[Joe Rigney]

Let's throw Father Christmas and a witch and these kids. Let's just throw them all together in this mishmash and make a story out of it. And Lewis said, I'm just going to put all the things I like and I'm going to make a really, really good meal.

[Paul Butler]

In another essay on writing, CS Lewis explained his approach this way. I wrote fairy tales because the fairy tale seems the ideal form for the stuff I had to say. According to Lewis, it allows the truth to sneak past the defenses of religious obligation.

[Joe Rigney]

Yeah, I'm supposed to love God. I'm going to try really hard. And he thought that fairy stories could steal past the watchful dragons. It could sneak around that inhibition and that obligation that frees his feelings, and it could kind of get in behind it.

[Paul Butler]

Many casual readers misunderstand Lewis's intent, seeing the Christian imagery of the lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe as allegorical. But Lewis said he was doing something very different, what he called a supposal.

[Joe Rigney]

And he basically said, suppose that the Son of God became incarnate in a fantasy world full of talking animals in the way that he had really become incarnate in this world as a human. What would that be like? And what that does is it creates a separate world. It's not just about this world. It's a separate world that you have to go into and live there for a while and soak in it with the goal that when you would come back, you would have been changed, altered, transformed by breathing that Narnian air.

[Paul Butler]

Rigney doesn't remember the first time he read the story of Aslan, the White Witch and the Magic Wardrobe. But he says he knows that it planted important seeds.

[Joe Rigney]

But it is just worth underscoring how gospel saturated the story is that despite the fact that Edmund is a rotten stinker who deserves every bit of the judgment that's coming to him through the witch, that Aslan's merciful and rescues him and then dies for him and sacrifices for him. So just that theme of, of glad hearted sacrifice that you know, the winter is now past and the spring has come and forgiveness is offered and redemption. That's fundamental to this story and one of the reasons why it resonates so strongly 75 years later.

[Paul Butler]

So how did Lucy Barfield respond to her godfather's fairy tale? She read it for the first time at age 13, a year before it was published. She assured Lewis that she wasn't too old at all and that she understood Narnia perfectly. And it was a land that she returned to many times. The year of Lewis's death, Lucy was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a condition that confined her to a hospital bed and eventually trapped her inside her own body. In the final years of her life, Lucy's brother Jeffrey would visit her and he'd read to her from Lewis's books as well as many letters from fans of the lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, who read the inscription. She's reported to have said, what I could not do for myself, the dedication did for me. My godfather gave me a greater gift than I had imagined. Jeffrey later said that the letters gave her great joy and in his words, were received with wonder as snowflakes in the desert. Lucy died in 2003. The Chronicles of Narnia have been translated into 60 languages and sold more than 115 million copies. Those who have visited Narnia are rarely the same.

[Michael York]

And the professor, who was a very remarkable man, didn't tell them not to be silly or not to tell lies, but believe the whole story. Yes, of course, you'll get back to Narnia again someday. Once a king in Narnia, always a king in Narnia. And that is the very end of the Adventure of the Wardrobe. But if the professor was right, it was only the beginning of The Adventures of Narnia.

[Paul Butler]

That's this week's world history book. The audio excerpts of the lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe are read by Michael York from the audiobook, available on Audible. I'm Paul Butler.

[Michael York]

Sam October 14, a National Day of.

[Mary Reichert]

Remembrance for Charlie Kirk, what would have been his 32nd birthday. We'll set the commemoration in historical context and more on the Middle east peace deal and life after the war. That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reichert.

[Nick Eicher]

And I'm Nick Eicher. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says, thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb. I am the Lord who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, who frustrates the signs of liars and makes fools of diviners, who turns wise men back and makes their knowledge foolish. Verses 24 and 25 of Isaiah 44. Go now in grace and peace.