← The World and Everything In It
The World and Everything In It
3.10.25 Legal Docket, Moneybeat, and pro-life protests turn violent
00:40:08
Loading summary
Transcript134 lines
- [00:06]
Mary Reichardt
Good morning. The Supreme Court is deciding how to handle a discrimination case. And one possible outcome is to handle it as a discrimination case.
- [00:15]
Chief Justice John Roberts
I think what this case is all about, and those are the four words on the side of this building, equal justice under law.
- [00:21]
Nick Eicher
That's ahead today on Legal docket. Also today, the Monday Money beat will talk about the promised government spending detox and the US as the bitcoin superpower of the world. David Bonson is standing by. And later, the world history book. Today, the anniversary of a deadly shooting of an abortionist.
- [00:47]
Mary Reichardt
It's Monday, March 10th. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichert.
- [00:54]
Nick Eicher
And I'm Nick Eicher. Good morning.
- [00:58]
Mary Reichardt
Up next, Kent Covington with today's news.
- [01:01]
Kent Covington
Ongoing negotiations between US Officials and Hamas have been productive. That's the word from Adam Boller, the Trump administration's envoy for hostages. He expressed optimism that a deal could come together within weeks. Boller said first and foremost, he's focused on bringing home all remaining hostages still held by the terror group.
- [01:21]
Nick Eicher
How can I get our hostages out.
- [01:23]
David Bonson
As soon as possible? I feel every single day when men are not out.
- [01:27]
Kent Covington
And amid the unprecedented talks between the US and the terror group, Bowler also explained what lasting peace would have to look like.
- [01:34]
Nick Eicher
A truce where they would be disarmed, a truce where they would not be.
- [01:38]
David Bonson
Part of the political policy, and a truce where we would ensure that they.
- [01:43]
Nick Eicher
Are in a place where they can't hurt Israel.
- [01:46]
Kent Covington
Meantime, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, says he's not interested in negotiating over his country's nuclear program. He said he's not willing to talk as long as the US Continues its maximum pressure campaign on Iran, which includes heavy sanctions. His statement follows President Trump's letter to Tehran seeking a diplomatic solution to prevent the regime from developing a nuke. Trump is warning of military action if Tehran does not negotiate. And the president said Sunday that despite a rift with Ukraine's president that culminated in an Oval Office argument more than a week ago, the two countries will still likely sign an economic pact to include mineral rights.
- [02:24]
David Bonson
Yeah, I think so. I think it'll happen.
- [02:26]
Kent Covington
Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, the president also said he's not happy with European allies. He said they've continued to bankroll Russia in recent years by buying their oil while not matching US Aid to Ukraine.
- [02:38]
David Bonson
So they're paying all this money to Russia and we're in there for $350 billion.
- [02:44]
Kent Covington
Trump has stated his belief that Vladimir Putin wants to negotiate an end to the war. But he also said he's ramping up pressure on Russia and is seriously considering imposing sanctions and tariffs until a peace deal is reached. Top US Officials will hold talks with Ukrainian leaders in Saudi Arabia tomorrow. Canada will soon have a new prime minister. In a vote on Sunday, the governing Liberal Party chose former central banker Mark Carney. He'll replace outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who announced his resignation in January but remained on the job until a replacement was chosen and sworn in. Carney vowed, I will work day and night with one purpose, which is to.
- [03:26]
David Bonson
Build a stronger Canada for everyone.
- [03:29]
Kent Covington
The 59 year old Carney is a staunch critic of President Trump. He'll take office amid a fight with the White House over new trade tariffs. US Clocks just made the spring forward over the weekend, but will they ever fall back? There is renewed talk in Washington about getting rid of the time shifts once and for all by keeping daylight savings permanently or eliminating it altogether. President Trump says a lot of Americans want more daylight later in the day, but others want it lighter earlier when the kids are heading to school.
- [04:00]
David Bonson
It's a 5050 issue. And if something's a 5050 issue, it's hard to get excited about it.
- [04:06]
Kent Covington
But a recent poll of more than 1,000Americans suggests that the split might not be quite that. Even a Stetson University survey conducted last month found that 54% want daylight savings permanently, while 21% want to keep standard time year round. But overall, three out of four Americans want to stop changing their clocks every six months. In 2022, the US Senate passed a bill to make daylight savings permanent, but it did not pass in the House. I'm Kent Covington. And straight ahead, the Supreme Court considers due process and workplace discrimin. Plus the Monday money beat with economist David Bonson. This is the world and everything in it.
- [05:02]
Nick Eicher
It's the world and everything in it for this 10th day of March 2025. We are so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Iger.
- [05:11]
Mary Reichardt
And I'm Mary Reichardt. Time now for legal docket. Due process rights are a fundamental part of the U.S. constitution and our legal system. The 5th and 14th are the two amendments that guarantee due process. They require that the government follow established rules and treat people fairly. But an inmate on death row claims he's not being treated fairly and that the state of Texas is to blame. We turn now to the story of convicted killer Ruben Gutierrez.
- [05:42]
Kent Covington
The 47 year old is scheduled to.
- [05:43]
Mary Reichardt
Be executed tomorrow night for the 1998 murder of Escolastica Harrison. Audio from CBS4 News, Rio Grande Valley. Gutierrez stands accused of capital murder in the case of that elderly woman robbed and fatally stabbed in her home. Now, tomorrow is the sixth execution date that has been set for Gutierrez. But a key legal question still hangs in the balance. Meaning that there's a chance that the lethal injection won't happen as planned.
- [06:11]
Nick Eicher
And indeed it did not. Gutierrez appealed and the Supreme Court took the case. What it will answer is whether Gutierrez can sue Texas for denying DNA testing and whether it even matters as far as his execution is concerned.
- [06:26]
Mary Reichardt
Let's review a few more facts. Escholastica Harrison ran a trailer park and because she didn't trust banks, she kept huge sums of cash in her home to run her business with. When she was robbed, she had nearly $600,000 on the premises after she was fatally stabbed.
- [06:44]
Nick Eicher
Prosecutors convicted Gutierrez under a legal doctrine known as the law of parties. That just means he could receive the death penalty even if he didn't commit the crime by his own hand, but was a major participant. That is key.
- [06:58]
Mary Reichardt
Gutierrez asked to test certain evidence collected at the scene, evidence that had never been tested. For example, a blood stained shirt that belonged to the victim's nephew who lived with her. But Texas repeatedly denied his request, arguing that the testing wouldn't make any difference. In other words, no matter what the DNA tests might show, it wouldn't change his conviction.
- [07:21]
Nick Eicher
During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas asked the lawyer for Gutierrez, Seth Fisher, exactly what he hoped the testing would prove.
- [07:29]
Chief Justice John Roberts
What do you ultimately intend to show.
- [07:32]
Mary Reichardt
With the DNA that Mr. Gutierrez is death ineligible. We may not win that because is death ineligible because. Because he wasn't a major participant in the crime? Because he didn't actually kill, attempt to kill or anticipate a life would be taken.
- [07:48]
Nick Eicher
So what does this mean in practical terms? By making the argument his client was not a major participant, his strategy is to use the crime scene evidence to put as much distance as possible between Gutierrez and the killing.
- [08:02]
Mary Reichardt
But Texas says it has followed the law exactly right. The state points out that post conviction DNA tests are not mandatory, especially if they won't affect the verdict. And here Texas argues the other evidence against Gutierrez is strong enough to uphold the conviction. DNA testing or not. Texas Deputy Solicitor General William Cole here.
- [08:24]
David Bonson
There are several independent state law grounds that the prosecutor has relied on to deny access to the evidence. And those grounds are unaffected by the district court's narrow declaratory judgment. Here.
- [08:36]
Nick Eicher
Justice Sonia Sotomayor clarified the question presented in this exchange with Fisher, lawyer for Gutierrez.
- [08:43]
Mary Reichardt
So I thought this case was only about standing because the court before didn't get to the due process arguments, did it? I completely agree.
- [08:51]
David Bonson
This case is here about standing.
- [08:53]
Mary Reichardt
Texas also argues there is a second problem. Even if Gutierrez wins on standing, his lawsuit would still fail. The reason? Because prosecutors might simply refuse to comply with a DNA testing order, and that.
- [09:07]
Nick Eicher
Would make the court's order essentially meaningless, or to use the legal term of art, not redressible. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not buy that idea.
- [09:17]
Chief Justice John Roberts
I don't see how we can say something's not redressible just because the prosecutor's going to say, I'm not going to comply with a court order. You know, if President Nixon said, I'm not going to turn over the tapes no matter what, you wouldn't say, oh, I guess we don't have standing to hear the executive privilege case.
- [09:31]
Mary Reichardt
I mean, Justice Sotomayor brought attention back to the evidence itself. She pointed out there's untested evidence that might indicate other suspects, specifically two other men in the victim's home on the day of the crime. There were, I think, scrapings under the fingernails of the victim. Yes. There was a hair that was entwined in her finger or somewhere on her body. Correct. But if the evidence were to show that the other two were present, then that would give some support to your client's claim. Or support your client's claim that he wasn't the one who entered the apartment to do the killing. Yes, you, Honor. If Gutierrez wins, Texas would have to rethink its DNA testing rules in death penalty cases, and that would potentially affect other states as well. If Texas wins, then states could keep denying DNA testing so long as other procedures are strictly followed. Now, onto our final case.
- [10:38]
David Bonson
We will hear argument this morning in case number 2310 39, Ames v. The.
- [10:43]
Mary Reichardt
Ohio Department of Youth Services.
- [10:45]
Nick Eicher
This one is about discrimination in the workplace, but perhaps not the kind you typically hear about here. The plaintiff is Marlene Ames. She says she faced discrimination at work because she's heterosexual. Here she is talking with CBS News.
- [11:01]
Mary Reichardt
It was humiliating going to work every day. This is for everyone in the United States. Everyone should have a fair shake at their own battles. Since 2004, Ames had worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services. She had strong performance reviews and received promotions consistently until 2019. She applied for a bureau chief position, but instead found herself debated secretary with a substantial pay cut.
- [11:31]
Nick Eicher
And this happened right after she received recognition for her 30 years of service. Her old job went to a homosexual male, and the bureau Chief job went to a lesbian who hadn't even applied for it.
- [11:43]
Mary Reichardt
So Ames sued. She argued she'd been discriminated against because she is a non homosexual, a straight woman, according to the legal filings. But the lower court dismissed her case, ruling that because Ames is heterosexual, that makes her a member of what's considered a majority group. And because of that, she had a heavier burden of proof.
- [12:05]
Nick Eicher
So in order to succeed, she would have had to demonstrate background circumstances showing that her employer was the rare kind of workplace that discriminates against a majority. And according to lower courts, she hadn't done that. But Ames lawyer Michael Wang says that whole approach is wrongheaded.
- [12:24]
Chief Justice John Roberts
It's not because this court has said that Title VII aims to eradicate all discrimination in the workplace. But the background circumstances rule doesn't do that. It doesn't eradicate discrimination. It instructs courts to practice it by sorting individuals into majority and minority groups based on their race, their sex, or their protected characteristic, and applying a categorical evidentiary presumption not in favor of, but against the non moving party based solely on their being in a majority group. However you define it.
- [12:53]
Mary Reichardt
Chief Justice John Roberts tested that idea with a hypothetical involving ethnicity instead of sexual orientation.
- [13:01]
David Bonson
What if you have a situation where.
- [13:03]
Mary Reichardt
Say 60 employees in the company, say, you know, a half dozen African Americans, an African American applies for a job, there's an opening. He doesn't get, it remains, remains open for, you know, a couple of months. Does that satisfy the prima facie case? If you said, I, it was because.
- [13:22]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Of discrimination, assuming that they are qualified and yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes.
- [13:28]
Mary Reichardt
Okay.
- [13:29]
Nick Eicher
Then Roberts flipped the scenario around.
- [13:31]
Mary Reichardt
Now let's say it's the same thing, but the applicant is white, exactly the same facts. And she says, I was discriminated, I lost the job because of discrimination on.
- [13:41]
David Bonson
The basis of, of race.
- [13:42]
Mary Reichardt
Does that state a prima facie case?
- [13:45]
Chief Justice John Roberts
I think it states a prima facie case, but I think it goes, and perhaps your honor goes to the idea of getting employers to come forward with an explanation and then providing sort of legitimate non discriminatory reason, which I don't think is a high burden at all.
- [13:59]
Mary Reichardt
I think Ohio solicitor General Elliot Geiser took a different tack. He argued that Ames lawsuit failed for a simpler reason. She didn't present enough evidence, but after.
- [14:10]
Kent Covington
Discovery, she could not establish that anybody.
- [14:12]
David Bonson
Was motivated by sexual orientation or even.
- [14:14]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Knew her sexual orientation. She didn't provide evidence that, to quote Fernco, if otherwise unexplained, raises an inference of discrimination.
- [14:24]
Mary Reichardt
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Him on that point. So if we said someone like Ms. Ames, who is a member, it doesn't matter if she was gay or whether she was straight, she would have the exact same burden and be treated the exact same way under Title vii. If she sued as someone who was gay and argued that they were discriminated against under Title vii, same, I think.
- [14:47]
Kent Covington
That she should have the same burden.
- [14:48]
David Bonson
And that the best reading of what, the sixth?
- [14:51]
Mary Reichardt
Well, no, no. I'm just asking you what you think of the statute. So that is what you think of the statute. And same for someone who brings race discrimination, someone who brings, you know, a woman or a man who brings a sex discrimination suit on the basis of discrimination against the basis of sex, all of those, you agree that the court should apply the exact same burden, treat them the exact same way?
- [15:12]
Chief Justice John Roberts
We. We agree with that, Justice.
- [15:14]
Mary Reichardt
Justice Sotomayor highlighted troubling aspects of the state's case. Judge Ketledge basically said, you have a situation here where she alleged she was a member of the majority group. She was 20 year employee, great reviews. And then all of a sudden, sudden, she's not hired. And someone's hired who's gay, doesn't have her level of college experience and didn't even want the job. Something suspicious about that. It certainly can give rise to an inference of discrimination.
- [15:48]
Nick Eicher
Justice Elena Kagan summed up the dilemma this way.
- [15:51]
Mary Reichardt
The question presented is whether a majority group plaintiff has to show something more than a minority group plaintiff. Plaintiff here, whether a straight person has to show more than a gay person. Everybody over here says no. You say no, too. That was the question that we took the case to decide. Why shouldn't we approach the case in that way?
- [16:11]
Nick Eicher
Indeed, both sides ended up agreeing, which means the Justices might finally remove this background circumstances standard altogether, treating all discrimination cases as discrimination cases. Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the simplest possible resolution in this exchange with lawyer Wang.
- [16:31]
Chief Justice John Roberts
So all you want for this case is a really short opinion that says discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether it's because you're gay or because you're straight, is prohibited, and the rules are the same whichever way that goes? That's right, you, Honor. That's all we need to say, right?
- [16:48]
Nick Eicher
Wang summed it all up with an appeal to the Court's own promise chiseled into its marble facade directly above the main entrance to the building.
- [16:57]
Chief Justice John Roberts
I think what this case is all about, and those are the four words on the side of this building. Equal justice under law. Now, I know that sometimes we don't fulfill that promise. I understand that. But at the heart of this case, at bottom, all Ms. Ames is asking for is equal justice under law, not more justice, not more justice, but certainly not less. And, and certainly not less because of the color of her skin or because of her sex or because of her religion. We're simply asking for equal justice under law. That's what Title VII says, and I think that's consistent with what this court has held.
- [17:36]
Mary Reichardt
If Ames prevails, and it seems likely she will, her case will return to the lower courts and the outcome there could shape how judges across the country approach workplace discrimination lawsuits, especially in the context of any remaining diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
- [17:53]
Nick Eicher
All right, two opinions to report from last week. In Bufkin v. Collins, The Supreme Court ruled 7, 2 in favor of the Veterans Administration in a dispute on how it assesses disability claims. Veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton argued that courts should independently reevaluate evidence. But the majority said no, courts can only step in if the VA clearly made a mistake.
- [18:20]
Mary Reichardt
And a 6 to 3 decision in City and County of San Francisco vs EPA, the justices struck down what are called end result permitting requirements from the epa. They said the agency now has to set clearer and enforceable pollution limits under the Clean Water Act. The case returns to the lower courts for further proceedings, and that's this week's legal docket.
- [19:00]
Kent Covington
Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, helping entrepreneurs who are looking for more than just funding discover a community of Christian faith. Led investors. More@ambassadorsimpact.com from the book From Eden to Egypt by Alex Duke a guided tour of Genesis from edentoegyptbook.com and from Reformation Bible College, offering classical Christian education that.
- [19:30]
Nick Eicher
Prepares students to glorify and enjoy God in any career.
- [19:35]
Kent Covington
Reformationbiblecollege.org.
- [19:47]
Mary Reichardt
Coming up next on THE world and everything in it, the Monday Money beat.
- [19:53]
Nick Eicher
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.
- [20:05]
David Bonson
Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.
- [20:07]
Nick Eicher
All right, David, I know you prefer not to look to a single month of jobs numbers, that a three month moving average is really the better figure. It is funny though that the 151,000 jobs added in February according to the figure we got on Friday, that that number is exactly the average of the last three months. But the reason that I bring this one up in isolation is because of the administration's spin on the report pointing to the of government jobs within that report about 10,000 jobs lost and spinning it as a positive. Do you think that that is misplaced? What do you think the report tells us about the actual health of the labor market?
- [20:50]
David Bonson
Yeah, I don't. I mean, I think it was a pretty boring jobs report. 10,000 isn't very many. And when they're talking about, oh well good, we're getting rid of some of these government jobs, I mean, first of all, there's going to be a lot more than 10,000 that will have to go in the end. But whatever the number is, they can't assume that all of them are going to be replaced in the private sector. So I'm not sure that the right approach is to be supporting any job loss. It's more getting the right size of government. And that's different. I think that you hire to what it is your need is. And so there's sort of a reversal of the conversation. The expected number was 160,000 total. It came in at 150. So it was just a little bit light. And then to the extent that the government jobs went down and the administration wants to celebrate that, we have to remember that 25% of job growth last year was in the governmental or governmental adjacent sector. So a lot of these things are smoothing out from excesses of last year. There's a lot of nuance in it. I'm more focused, as you know, on the weekly jobless claims. We're going to get a third week this coming week to give me an average based on that first number that had come in a couple weeks ago that was noticeably higher. Do I think we're potentially in early signs of a little bit of weakness in labor market? I do, but it's a little premature to make the conclusion, although there is certainly a little, you know, preliminary evidence of it.
- [22:27]
Nick Eicher
David Treasury Secretary Scott Besant spoke to the Economic Club of New York and then he sat for an interview on Friday for cnbc. Secretary Besant described the economy as needing a detox from government spending, implying short term pain for long term gain. Let's listen to that clip from cnbc.
- [22:49]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Squawk BOX the market and the economy have just become hooked and we've become addicted to this government spending and there's going to be a detox period. We'll see whether there's pain. What we are trying to do, I talked about it at the Economic Club of New York yesterday. There's going to be a natural adjustment as we move away from public spending to private spending.
- [23:14]
Nick Eicher
David, do you see this messaging as honest economic analysis or more of political spin, as I suggested. And how realistic is this detox strategy?
- [23:25]
David Bonson
Yeah, I think that my interpretation of that was if you are going to go through tariffs or protectionism and other private sector interference that hurts the economy, it would be good to try to tee up in advance that you want to blame it on reducing the size of government. So I thought that there was a little preemptive spin potentially there. I don't think markets would necessarily fall for that, obviously. However, I there is a sense in which it's true that there would always be a detox to have to come off of a dependence on governmental transfer payments. And I think that Secretary Besant is a very savvy person. He can't blame this entirely on the transfer payments that were at play here when, you know, the majority of them started in the latter portion of President Trump's first term out of COVID Like when we talk about the economy being dependent on governmental spending, I don't think anyone believes that growth, real economic growth and productivity is coming from these various projects we're trying to cut out of government right now. And if we were to cut them, it's going to hurt the economy for a little bit. But then the detox, we go through detox and then we're better off. The things that we have to sort of wean off of are various transfer payments that started out of the COVID moment and there hasn't been a continuation of some of them yet. It's difficult because Secretary Besson has such a strong command of financial markets. He has a very, very difficult job, Nick, because he has to appease his boss, he has to appease markets, and he has to try to drive a policy solution to a number of different things, some of which I'm very convinced he's working on and has a rather intelligent plan behind it. But the messaging along the way is very difficult to take seriously because they have to navigate all these things at once.
- [25:27]
Nick Eicher
David, on markets, all of the major indexes fell in A range from 1.5 to 2.3% on the week. The S&P 500, the Nasdaq, both of them falling for the third week in a row. And what we had seen to this point is the markets veering back and forth based on where the president was on tariffs, falling on tariff announcements, then rebounding whenever tariffs were canceled or walked back. It was Karate Kid style, you know, kind of wax on, wax off, but they didn't swing this time around. What changed this week and do you think this suggests anything at all about investors, deeper economic concerns.
- [26:12]
David Bonson
So on one hand there is the tariff issues themselves, which are wax on, wax off, you know, being told different things all the time. And this was, to me, noteworthy this last week that for the first time you had yet another reversal of big tariff threats that they walked back again, only this time markets didn't rally from the walk back. They continued to sell off. And my argument here was that markets are now not responding to will there be or not be tariffs. It's very clear whatever tariffs we do get are going to be riddled with exceptions and carve outs and exemptions and favors and all of this type of stuff. A lot of the reasons that, as you know, I'm so opposed to the policy. But what the markets are responding to, in my opinion, is what, regardless of what happens and regardless of what doesn't happen, it is going to end up impacting real economic growth. And so what I tried to do in Dividend Cafe is show how the bond market is showing this, that essentially bond yields have dropped a lot, but inflation expectations have not been much of a driver. So a lot of the tariff defenders are saying, look, inflation expectations haven't gone up with the threat of tariffs. In fact, bond yields are coming down. And my point is, yes, they're entirely going down because real growth expectations have dropped by half of a percentage point per year for the next 10 years. So that's what I think markets are responding to is the possibility of real economic growth and after inflation, all of a sudden having a much lower expectation than it did at the point of the inauguration. So we had a good move up in expectations from the election to the inauguration. Since then, it's given all of that back and then some. And I think that's partially a little bit of concern around where we're going with tax policy, tax cuts, tax extensions. I think markets are a little uncertain about that process and then certainly the looming issues around tariffs.
- [28:22]
Nick Eicher
David, on Friday, the bitcoin summit at the White House was held and it featured leading cryptocurrency and tech enthusiasts. It was chaired by the White House crypto czar, David Sachs. The President was there, and let's listen to a little bit of what he had to say.
- [28:40]
David Bonson
Last year I promised to make America the bitcoin superpower of the world and the crypto capital of the planet. And we're taking historic action to deliver on that promise. As you know around the table, yesterday I signed an executive order officially creating our strategic bitcoin reserve. And this will be a virtual Fort Knox for digital gold to be housed within the United States Treasury. That's a big thing, Steve. The federal government is already among the largest holders of bitcoin, as you know.
- [29:16]
Nick Eicher
By the way, the reference to Scott there was to the Treasury Secretary whom we heard just a moment ago, Scott Besant. But David, what should we take from the administration's moves on bitcoin and do you see it as a shift?
- [29:31]
David Bonson
Yeah, it's interesting. Bitcoin was 86,000 a few days after the election and as we're sitting here talking, it's 86,000 now. But I strongly suspect by the time people are listening, it could be a lot higher, a lot lower because it has just exploded in volatility. And it all shows the folly of believing that regulation around the exchanges is supposed to affect the underlying price. And that was the big takeaway from, from that summit last week. It's a very sociological investment and that's fine. It just isn't a economic investment. And so, you know, sometimes the sociology behind it is going to drive a price higher. And hopefully people do what you're supposed to do in that situation. Many times it drives it lower. But every single thing I've said for the last decade about bitcoin and cryptocurrency I think continues to play out exactly as described. And I stand by it. I was utterly amused by David Sachs, who is a billionaire VC heavy, crypto enthusiast, member of Trump's AI and Cryptocurrency Advisory Council, make the comment that crypto should not be relying upon government to be buying it. And of course you hear all the times from bitcoin people, well, they're going to make a big strategic reserve and that's going to push the price up. All I've heard for the last few years is it's supposed to be an anti governmental investment and now I'm being told that it's government is going to add to the value. So I have a hard time keeping it straight. And that was some of the mixed messaging at the summit that you're referring to from a few days ago.
- [31:09]
Nick Eicher
All right, that is David Bonson. He is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. David rights@dividendcafe.com and regularly for World Opinions. David, thank you. I hope you have a great week.
- [31:23]
David Bonson
Thanks so much, Nick. Great to be with you.
- [31:58]
Nick Eicher
Today is Monday, March 10th. Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from listener support at World Radio. I'm Nick Iger.
- [32:06]
Mary Reichardt
And I'm Eric Mary Reichard. Up next, the world history book. Today, an anti abortion activist triggers more violence. World's Emma Perley brings us the story.
- [32:19]
Emma Perley
Today marks a dark anniversary, the 32nd anniversary of a murder.
- [32:26]
Mary Reichardt
Today is Abortion Provider Appreciation Day. This day was established to honor Dr. David Gunn, who was killed on March 10, 1993 outside his abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida by a white supremacist anti abortion extremist.
- [32:46]
Emma Perley
It was just last year that legislators introduced that resolution to memorialize the murder of abortionist David Gunn. The pro life activist Michael Griffin shot him in the back three times. Here's Griffin speaking with 60 Minutes Australia in 2010.
- [33:02]
Chief Justice John Roberts
The only people who should be in fear and terror are the abortion doctors. They gotta have a reckoning one day with God.
- [33:10]
Emma Perley
So what happened on the morning of March 10, 1993? Pro Life protesters gather around Gunn's abortion center. They hold signs that say, David Gunn kills babies. When Gunn arrives at 10am, he parks, gets out of his car and heads toward the back door. He'd had polio as a child and so walks with a limp. Michael Griffin wears a gray suit. A witness says it looks like he's going to church. Earlier that same week, Griffin had asked his church congregation to pray that God might save Gun's soul. Now Griffin waits for him behind the abortion center in the parking lot holding a snub nosed revolver. As soon as Griffin sees Gun, he chases the doctor. As he limps toward the building toward safety, Griffin yells, don't kill any more babies. Pulls out his revolver and shoots Gun in the back at point blank range. No one calls the police to help Gun, not even the pro life protesters. When officers arrive, they had simply been told to stop the protest. Then Griffin steps forward and says, I just shot someone. The murder of David Gunn is the culmination of increasing unrest at abortion centers. In the late 80s, an organization called Operation Rescue held sit ins across the country to stop abortion providers and those seeking abortions from entering buildings. Audio from a protester speaking with a local radio station.
- [34:41]
Mary Reichardt
We're petitioning God. Petitioning God to change the hearts of the people of this country and the man that runs this place.
- [34:49]
Emma Perley
Then, in 1991, Operation Rescue led the Summer of Mercy, where pro life activists gathered at abortion center entrances in Wichita, Kansas. They linked arms to block the doors and police often intervened, sometimes violently. Audio from CBN News Another act of.
- [35:07]
Mary Reichardt
Aggression occurred at the clinic. This time, a policeman warned these adamantly determined demonstrators to close their eyes or move from the recessed doorway just seconds before spraying them with mace.
- [35:18]
David Bonson
Get out of the way.
- [35:19]
Nick Eicher
Get out of the way.
- [35:20]
Mary Reichardt
I'm not gonna tell you again.
- [35:22]
Nick Eicher
You got a chance to leave.
- [35:24]
Emma Perley
More than 2,600 people were eventually arrested. But in 1993, Griffin for the first time escalates the pro life movement to murder. Why? Griffin says God had told him to resort to violence. But at his trial, he claims pro life leaders had manipulated him into murdering Gunn. On March 4, 1994, Griffin is sentenced to life in prison. He shows no remorse. Griffin on 60 Minutes, Australia.
- [35:55]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Again, God clearly condemns the killing of a child. That's murder. Abortion is murder.
- [36:02]
Mary Reichardt
So how would you describe what you did if not murder?
- [36:07]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Saving 12 children.
- [36:09]
Emma Perley
Pro life organizations have mixed reactions to the killing. Operation Rescue says Gunn's death was unfortunate but ultimately saved babies. And many pro life activists signed the Defensive action statement, which called the murder justified. But the United States Catholic Conference condemns the violence, calling it a mockery of the pro life cause. The murder is a major setback for pro life activists as pro abortion supporters jump on the tragedy.
- [36:38]
David Bonson
Enacting this bill to provide freedom of.
- [36:40]
Mary Reichardt
Access to clinics has been a priority because protecting the freedoms of our citizens is surely chief among the responsibilities of the President of the United States.
- [36:51]
Emma Perley
A little more than a year after the murder, former President Bill Clinton signs the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances act or FACE act, into law, making it a federal crime for protesters to blockade abortion facilities or threaten providers. Gunn's son, David Gunn Jr. Is a vocal advocate for the law. Even so, Griffin's actions inspire copycats like Rachelle Shannon, who shoots an abortionist in both arms, and Paul Hill, who guns down an abortionist and his bodyguard. In 1994, Hill is the first person to be sentenced to death for killing an abortion doctor. He speaks with an interviewer in prison right before his execution in 2003.
- [37:34]
Mary Reichardt
Why did you do it?
- [37:36]
Kent Covington
Perhaps the most fundamental reason is the sixth commandment.
- [37:39]
Chief Justice John Roberts
Thou shalt not.
- [37:40]
Kent Covington
Murder also requires the means necessary to defend innocent people. And that's what I did.
- [37:46]
Emma Perley
Hill says he hopes to inspire others, and he does. In 1994, 22 year old John Salvi walks into an abortion center and opens fire, killing two and wounding five others. He is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. While violence continues well into the 2000s, it also creates new targets. Crisis pregnancy centers. Since the passage of the FACE act, attacks on these organizations have also increased, and officials such as Jim Jordan have accused the federal government of turning a blind eye.
- [38:22]
Chief Justice John Roberts
If you're a pro life activist and.
- [38:25]
David Bonson
You'Re praying outside an abortion clinic, guess.
- [38:27]
Mary Reichardt
What happens to you. FBI kicks in your door, arrests you.
- [38:32]
Nick Eicher
Puts you in handcuffs.
- [38:33]
Emma Perley
Since 2022, more than 100 crisis pregnancy centers and pro life organizations have been vandalized or set on fire. Many more than months. The FBI and local police have arrested only six people in connection with the attacks. That's this week's world history Book. I'm Emma Perley.
- [39:20]
Nick Eicher
Tomorrow, support is growing in Montana for assisted suicide. We'll tell you what's behind that shift that and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Iker.
- [39:30]
Mary Reichardt
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 God instructed Aaron and his sons to bless the Israelite with these the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you. The Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace. Verses 24 through 26 of Numbers, chapter 6 6. Go now in grace and peace.