Kent Covington (2:37)

The aviator is said to be seriously wounded, but expected to recover. Two Black Hawk helicopters came under fire but reached safe airspace. And the US Blew up two transport planes left behind after a technical malfunction. Iran claims it shot them down. General McKenzie also told CBS's Face the Nation on Sunday that US forces have accomplished much of what they set out to do, namely crushing Iran's ability to inflict mass destruction.

Dexter King (3:04)

They have the ability to inflict damage. They do not have the ability to gain mass effects. And by mass effects, I mean firing many, many dozens of rockets, missiles or drones. I think that capability has been eroded steadily since this campaign began.

Kent Covington (3:19)

Meantime, President Trump is giving Iran until Tuesday to open the Strait of Hormuz or face massive new strikes. Trump posted the threat online Sunday, vowing to hit Iran's power plants and bridges. The president has issued such deadlines before, but extended them when mediators claimed progress the crew of the Artemis 2 mission is closing in on the moon this morning, set for a historic lunar flyby later today. The crew of four is carrying out humanity's first deep space mission since Apollo 17 in 1972. NASA's acting head of Exploration Systems Development,

David Bonson (3:54)

Lori Glaze, our flight operations team and

Cecilia Wang (3:57)

our science team are ready for the first lunar flyby in more than 50 years.

Kent Covington (4:02)

The flyby will break Apollo 13's all time distance record from Earth at closest approach, the crew will come within 4,000 miles of the lunar surface, photographing parts of the far side that no human eye has ever seen. And crew members from inside their Orion capsule will also experience a total solar eclipse. Mission control will lose contact with them for about 40 minutes while the crew passes behind the moon. And Lori Glaze added that health experiments aboard the capsule are laying the groundwork for future missions.

Cecilia Wang (4:31)

All of these human health experiments are

Mary Muncie (4:32)

informing how we can keep our crews

Cecilia Wang (4:34)

healthy on the longer missions that are

Mary Reichardt (4:36)

coming up in the future.

Kent Covington (4:38)

Artemis II is expected to splash down in the Pacific near San Diego on Friday. In Washington, the Homeland Security Department remains largely shut down this morning as Congress returns for a new week with no funding vote in sight. Republican leaders have set a two track plan, pass a Senate bill funding most of DHS now and then fund ICE and Border Patrol separately through budget reconciliation, bypassing Democrats entirely. GOP Congressman Jimmy Petronas said Sunday.

Justice Samuel Alito (5:06)

We really need reconciliation to start first and I think if reconciliation starts, we

Dexter King (5:12)

start to see the framework of it,

Justice Samuel Alito (5:13)

then the members are going to start

Dexter King (5:15)

to get more comfortable as we are trying to bring this all in for a landing.

Kent Covington (5:19)

The department has been without funding for nearly 50 days after Democrats refused to fund immigration enforcement unless Republicans agreed to a list of demanded changes. President Trump assigned a memo on Friday to keep DHS paychecks flowing in the meantime. Today's show co anchor Savannah Guthrie returns to the air this morning, two months after her 84 year old mother was abducted from her Tucson area home ahead of her return. Guthrie delivered an Easter message admitting that she has felt deep disappointment with God since her mother's disappearance, but adds that

David Bonson (5:52)

she still believes our faith gives us

Cecilia Wang (5:54)

a spiritual conviction that we will be

David Bonson (5:56)

reborn, that God will redeem this pain, that every tear will be wiped away, that our Easter is coming.

Kent Covington (6:05)

That was a video message delivered to the Good Shepherd Church in New York City. Nancy Guthrie has been missing since February 1, with investigators finding blood stains at her residence and multiple ransom notes demanding cryptocurrency. The FBI is still investigating. The Guthrie family has offered a $1 million reward for information leading to her safe return. I'm Kent Covington. And straight ahead, legal analysis of the landmark birthright citizenship case at the Supreme Court. Plus, the legacy left behind by Martin Luther King Jr. This is the world and everything in it.

Nick Eicher (7:01)

It's the world and everything in it for this 6th day of April, 2026. We're so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Einker.

Mary Reichardt (7:09)

And I'm Mary Reinkert. It's time now for legal docket. What does it mean to be born a citizen of the United States? That was the question at the Supreme Court last week. The justice is taking up an issue that's been bubbling up for more than 100 years. At stake, whether the Constitution guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born on US Soil or whether the government has the authority to draw tighter limits.

Nick Eicher (7:34)

That question lands at a moment of high immigration pressure. Federal data show record levels of migrant encounters at the southern border under the Biden administration, peaking at nearly two and a half million in the year 2023. Immigration courts now face a backlog of millions of cases, plus asylum cases, with many claims taking years to resolve. At the same time, the business of birth tourism figured into the argument. From Miami luxury suites for Russian elites to 500 plus companies operating in China, federal prosecutors say the scale is staggering. Testimony in Congress last month estimates three quarters of a million and maybe twice that number of citizenships may be linked to those operations. With foreign adversaries gaming the system to build a block of dual citizen voters who live with work and remain loyal to interests overseas. All of that raises the stakes whether a Civil War era constitutional rule still operates the same way in a very different world.

Mary Reichardt (8:40)

That question came to a head on the first day of President Trump's second term. He signed an executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. It says the 14th Amendment does not extend citizenship to everyone born in the United States. Citizenship belongs only to those subject to the jurisdiction thereof that order pertains to children born to mothers in the country unlawfully or here lawfully, but only temporarily, such as on student, work or tourist visas. Those children under the order would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship if the father is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Nick Eicher (9:19)

The issue now is the latest attempt to force clarity on the meaning and reach of the 14th Amendment. To use the Latin that lawyers love so much, does America follow use solely the right of the soil, or does it follow use sanguineous citizenship based on the nationality of your mom and dad? This debate has not always been as partisan as it is now. Back in 1993, with President Bill Clinton in his first term, Democratic Senator Harry Reid had this to say on the Senate floor.

Dexter King (9:50)

No sane country would do that right. If you break our laws by entering

David Bonson (9:56)

this country without permission and give birth

Dexter King (9:57)

to a child, we reward that child

David Bonson (10:01)

with U.S. citizenship and guarantee a full

Chief Justice John Roberts (10:04)

access to all public and social services this society provides.

Mary Reichardt (10:08)

He later reversed that position as majority leader, but the underlying question never went away. Now it's front and center at the Supreme Court, which must interpret one line from the 14th Amendment. All persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. It's that second part, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that is in contention now. Arguing for the government, Solicitor General John Sauer defended that reading of the Constitution.

Solicitor General John Sauer (10:38)

The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile. Here it did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance.

Mary Reichardt (10:56)

He argued that automatic birthright citizenship creates practical consequences as well.

Solicitor General John Sauer (11:01)

Unrestricted birthright citizenship contradicts the practice of the overwhelming majority of modern nations. It demeans the priceless and profound gift of American citizenship. It operates as a powerful pull factor for illegal immigration and rewards illegal aliens who not only violate the immigration laws but also jump in front of those who follow the rules.

Nick Eicher (11:22)

Now for background, the 14th Amendment was adopted after the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision, which denied citizenship to black Americans. The constitutional amendment guaranteed citizenship to former slaves and their children. Months earlier, Congress had passed the Civil Rights act of 1866. That law said anyone born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power was a citizen.

Mary Reichardt (11:49)

And that's where the dispute begins whether those two phrases, not subject to any foreign power and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, mean the same thing. More than 150 years later, the Court still hasn't Given a definitive answer, the

Nick Eicher (12:04)

Trump administration takes the position that they do mean the same thing, that both phrases exclude children of parents without permanent legal status in the United States. And at oral argument, the justices sought to find out what jurisdiction really means. Justice Clarence Thomas asked whether the clause assumes something more permanent, like a home or domicile.

Justice Samuel Alito (12:27)

The citizenship clause refers not just to national citizenship but also to state citizenship.

Nick Eicher (12:35)

Are we to have two different definitions for those?

Mary Reichardt (12:39)

Sauer responded, the clause assumes people are domiciled in this country and not merely passing through. But Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed back to the historical debates. Note for the sake of clarity, I have edited some of these exchanges.

Cecilia Wang (12:54)

So what do you do during the debates of the 1866 Civil Rights act and of the 14th Amendment, and the fact that the proponents of both acts said everyone who's born in the US Will be citizens?

Mary Reichardt (13:10)

Justice Elena Kagan wondered whether the government's argument rests on narrow, unusual examples.

Cecilia Wang (13:16)

Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding of that there were going to be temporary inhabitants. And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.

Nick Eicher (13:35)

Chief Justice John Roberts echoed that concern.

Chief Justice John Roberts (13:38)

You obviously put a lot of weight on subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Solicitor General John Sauer (13:42)

But.

Chief Justice John Roberts (13:42)

But the examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky. You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I'm not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.

Nick Eicher (14:08)

Justice Samuel Alito took a different approach, asking how old constitutional language applies to new realities.

Justice Samuel Alito (14:16)

What we're dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration. So how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?

Mary Reichardt (14:28)

Justice Alito compared it to applying old laws to new technology. Merely because a thing did not exist at the time the law was written doesn't mean the law cannot apply in the future. And that raised an even deeper question running through the case. Is the Constitution fixed, or does its meaning extend to circumstances the Framers could never foresee? Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked directly, are the

Nick Eicher (14:53)

exceptions you've used the word closed many

David Bonson (14:56)

times, frozen, or do we reason by analogy to the exceptions that existed based on things that were unforeseen at the time? I'm thinking in particular about the non citizens unlawfully in the country, not the temporary part, but the non citizens unlawfully in the country.

Nick Eicher (15:14)

On the other side is a nationwide class of challengers. The lead plaintiff is known only as Barbara, a woman from Honduras living in New Hampshire and seeking asylum. She argues her US born child is a citizen and that status matters for access to benefits like snap, Medicaid and Social Security. Their lawyer, Cecilia Wang of the aclu.

Cecilia Wang (15:37)

Ask any American what our citizenship rule is and they'll tell you everyone born here is a citizen alike. That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy. Thirty years after ratification, this court held that the 14th Amendment embodies the English common law rule. Virtually everyone born on US soil is subject to its jurisdiction and is a citizen. It excludes only those cloaked with a fiction of extraterritoriality because they are subject to another sovereign's jurisdiction, even when they're in the United States. A closed set of exceptions to an otherwise universal rule.

Mary Reichardt (16:20)

She argued the 14th Amendment is a broad rule with very narrow exceptions. And she leaned on an 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wang Kim Ark that held that a child born on US soil to non citizen parents, albeit parents here legally, was still a citizen. Case settled, she argued.

Nick Eicher (16:40)

But Justice Alito wasn't so sure about applying those facts to this case. He offered a hypothetical.

Justice Samuel Alito (16:46)

Not subject to any foreign power is pretty straightforward. A boy is born here to an Iranian father who has entered the country illegally. That boy is automatically an Iranian national at birth, and he has a duty to provide military service to the Iranian government. Is he not subject to any foreign power?

Cecilia Wang (17:11)

Not within the meaning of the 1866 Act. Justice Alito, what the framers meant was by the phrase not subject to any foreign power was referring to the ambassador exception.

Justice Samuel Alito (17:21)

Ordinary public. Ordinary public meaning of that would certainly encompass that boy, would it not?

Nick Eicher (17:28)

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a very practical concern, reflecting her years as a professor of civil procedure.

Mary Muncie (17:35)

What if you don't know who the parents are?

David Bonson (17:37)

How would it work?

Mary Reichardt (17:38)

How would you adjudicate these cases? You're not going to know at the time of birth for some people, whether they have the intent to stay or not. Chief Justice Roberts brought up birth tourism. Sauer was ready for it.

Solicitor General John Sauer (17:51)

Here's a fact about it that I think is striking. Media reported as early as 2015 that based on Chinese media reports, there are 500, 500 birth tourism companies in the People's Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth in return to that nation.

Chief Justice John Roberts (18:09)

Well, it certainly wasn't a problem in the 19th century.

Solicitor General John Sauer (18:12)

No. But of course, we're in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who's a U.S. citizen.

Chief Justice John Roberts (18:21)

Well, it's a new world. It's the same Constitution.

Mary Reichardt (18:23)

One thing to note is nobody would lose birthright citizenship who's already gained it, but future people won't get it. Under this principle, the executive order only applies to births after February 20, 2025, and even that is blocked by lower courts right now. Maybe the debate will push Congress to do something about people taking advantage of a principle designed for another context.

Chief Justice John Roberts (18:49)

Thank you, Counsel General.

Mary Reichardt (18:51)

The case is submitted and that's this week's legal docket.

Kent Covington (19:08)

Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, where entrepreneurs raising capital find investors who celebrate their redemptive mission. Ambassadorsimpact.com from Asbury University, committed to the formation of students through discipleship calling and career preparation. Asbury. Edu and from Pensacola Christian College, Academic Excellence Biblical Worldview Affordable Cost, Go pcci. Edu World.

Mary Reichardt (19:50)

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

Nick Eicher (19:56)

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. Good morning, David.

David Bonson (20:07)

Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.

Nick Eicher (20:09)

Well, David, let's begin with the obvious headline with energy stocks on a big run and oil prices jumping on the Iran situation last week and today. Wow. It's gonna be a very interesting and important day given the rescue over the weekend of the pilot and the war warning that the president has given to Iran. Now, of course, we've seen things like this before where geopolitical events can move prices pretty quickly in one direction or the other. But it's really tempting to treat energy as purely a geopolitical story. But you argue in Dividend Cafe that's exactly the wrong way to think about it. Tell us why.

David Bonson (20:49)

Well, what I'm acknowledging is that some of the recent move is obviously connected to the tailwind of what is happening in Iran and that there are geopolitical events from time to time that can either serve as headwinds or tailwinds to the energy story. But then you become a trader and you become, in your investment thesis, somewhat enslaved to the headlines. The headlines are extremely volatile and unpredictable themselves, including in this very moment we find ourselves in. With the Middle Eastern tensions, this thing could go on for four more months. It could be done in four more hours. And it has a whole lot of possibilities in between those things. And believing that energy investment at a high level, just broadly defined energy investment is a good or bad investment based on whether or not there's a supply shock out of a geopolitical turmoil event, I think is very dangerous. And I think it misses a much larger point about the way God made the world and the way economic growth comes to be. That essentially what we have properly understood historically, physically and certainly economically. And again, I tie all these things, Nick, to creationally, is that economic growth comes from energy being transformed. And that as it is transformed, things in the physical universe become more valuable, that it unlocks value. And we see this at a very obvious and profound level with coal in the Industrial revolution, and we understand what electricity has meant, but we can talk about it with oil and gas. And there are unbelievable world changing events in the energy world that have come from oil and gas. But by and large, I really believe we need to understand the importance not just in a moment where there's a supply shock in the Strait of Hormuz, but permanently understand, because in times of peace, in times of geopolitical bliss, there's people that have spent the last six to 10 years trying to take away our abundance of energy. And what that means is take away economic growth. And so I'm connecting a lot of dots here, but none of them are unimportant.

Nick Eicher (23:14)

Oh, absolutely, David. And there's quite a lot to get to. So let me move to the jobs report now. Actually pulled a year's worth of these government jobs reports just to try to put together for myself kind of a coherent, fuller picture, because when you look at the March jobs report headline that came out Friday, it really looked strong in the sense of beating expectations, but the month prior was negative. And we've been talking now for a while about labor shortages and, and labor participation issues. So really instead of my take, let me ask for yours. When you zoom out over that year, where do you think we really are right now in the jobs picture?

David Bonson (23:57)

Well, there look, the labor participation force and the jolts, the job openings, those are two very different things, although they can overlap to some degree. But the labor participation force declining is a very long, long term story that has played out over the last 17 years and shows no signs of getting better and does show plenty of signs of worsening. And it just simply refers to the amount of people that become kind of permanently removed from the labor force. The job openings when they get higher than what are people looking for jobs. That may not necessarily be about labor participation force, but it may be about a surge of employment, employers needing part time work, needing temporary work, or just hiring a bunch of new positions. In 2022, you saw a lot of that. But remember, there were a lot of layoffs in the COVID moment. And so out of the reopening of our economy, it increased a lot of demand for labor. And then you had limited supply. Whether or not that was permanently out of the labor force or a reflection of all the people that took government money in 2020 and 21 and the extended unemployment and so forth, there was a mismatch there that was very problematic. So I have most of my focus professionally and ideologically is on these longer term issues that bother me a great deal. And then there's various historical anecdotes we could look at. But I think you're asking about right now, where are we? And the jobs report that came out Friday on the holiday had a headline of being above expectations, which was true. It pains me to hear 178,000 being an above expectation number because we really want to see 200 to 250 as kind of the baseline. But then you look under the hood and it was no less than three reports I read this weekend, all indicating that the entirety of the upside surprise came from the very sectors that are the most often revised. And I think that this report is probably set up for a future downward revision. But any headline of higher than expected job growth, considering the vulnerability that we've been in and so forth, I think is a good thing. And the weekly jobless claims continue to not be moving higher, indicating that we still seem frozen where there is not great new hiring, but there is not yet great firing. And that's the issue that I just pray doesn't break. Because once employers decide the economy is precarious enough, we need to start laying people off. That obviously is generally the precondition to recession.

Nick Eicher (26:51)

Well, David, there was not a ton of commentary on the jobs report. One of the few that I saw was in the Wall Street Journal. It made the point that digging into the March job numbers, that one of the bright spots was the decline in government jobs, meaning that to get to the positive, private productive sector jobs had to outpace the government losses. So maybe I'm just looking for bright spots there. But do you find yourself agreeing with that argument?

David Bonson (27:20)

Yeah, but let's be in the right context. I do. I mean, there's two sides to the coin. If all you had in job growth was governmental jobs like in a real hyper Keynesian moment, then that should be less encouraging. Otherwise would be and likewise if a lot of the job losses are highlighted in government jobs, that should be less encouraging than otherwise from the vantage point of productivity. However, in this particular case, a lot of the governmental jobs are people taking early retirement, not moving to the productive parts of the economy. And you also then do see the positive job growth that's offsetting it largely in hospitality and food and beverage and other services spaces that are lower wage technology. And then this is the thing that just the tariff fans should be so unbelievably chastened by is the manufacturing jobs just continue to be going down, not up.

Nick Eicher (28:20)

Well, David, we have not talked about the Fed in a little bit, so I took a Look at the FedWatch futures looking forward across the rest of calendar year 2026, I have to say I was surprised to see that the markets essentially are pricing in zero rate cuts at all for the entirety of 2026. Do you actually agree with that, that the base case right now is just a hold on an interest rate we all know remains restrictive?

David Bonson (28:49)

Yeah, it's kind of symmetrical where the base case in the futures market continues to be that there will be no change, there's a slightly better than 10% that there will be one cut and a slightly less than 10% that there will be an increase. And so it's essentially the futures pricing and the idea of it all staying the same. It's extremely rare for me to be taking a position outside of the futures, but I continue to believe that Chairman Warsh, at whatever his first meeting is, the timing of which is a little unclear right now because of what Senator Tillis is going to do to hold up the nomination until they stop this nonsense against Chairman Powell. But I still think Warsh will end up getting installed around the end of the May meeting going into early June. And I honestly Nick would just be shocked if he doesn't cut rates at his first meeting. I'd be shocked, but the futures are saying he's not going to.

Nick Eicher (29:49)

Yeah, but he's got to have the votes to do that. He can't just do it by himself.

David Bonson (29:54)

Well, that's theoretically true, but there is no precedent at all for the committee going against the chair. So that is right. It would be a pretty interesting thing if the what it would mean to the legitimacy and the mandate of the chairmanship if in his very first meeting he was voting with the minority when it's never happened in Fed history. So we may get a little more Fed drama. For those of us that have felt like we were kind of past it the last couple of months, we may be getting more of it. We'll see.

Nick Eicher (30:25)

Yeah, we will. David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. He writes@dividendcafe.com and for World Opinions. David, I hope you have a great week and I trust you had a wonderful Easter rejoicing in the truth that Christ has risen.

David Bonson (30:42)

Amen. Thanks so much, Nick.

Mary Reichardt (31:09)

Good morning. This is the World and everything in it from Listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichardt.

Nick Eicher (31:14)

And I'm Nick Eicher. Finally today, the world history book this weekend marked the anniversary of the date that Martin Luther King, Jr. Was assassinated. The tragic end to his life. Mark marked a change in the civil rights movement. And nearly six decades later, some still wonder if justice was served. World's Mary muncie reports.

Mary Muncie (31:37)

In 1968, Reverend Samuel Billy Kyles was standing on a balcony in Memphis with Martin Luther King, Jr. When he heard a shot.

Nick Eicher (31:46)

I thought there was a firecracker, but I didn't see him. And my first reaction was that he's clowning again.

Dexter King (31:56)

See, he's feigning like he's been shot.

Mary Muncie (31:59)

He spoke with CNN in 2011 and

Nick Eicher (32:02)

then I saw his shoes sticking out from under the railing.

Dexter King (32:08)

We have information King has been shot. That's Lorraine.

Mary Muncie (32:11)

When police arrived, they asked where the shot came from and everybody pointed to the hotel across the street. On the way to the scene, Memphis police Captain Jewel Ray saw a bundle on the street by the hotel. People in the record store nearby told

Dexter King (32:26)

Ray had told him that a white fella had dropped it there and then had gotten a white Mustang and drove off.

Mary Muncie (32:35)

There was a rifle, a case and underwear wrapped in a green bedspread. When Ray made it to the hotel, he saw the screen knocked out of bathroom window with a clear line of sight to King's balcony. He radioed the other officers information we

Dexter King (32:49)

have on the subject. He's a young white male, well dressed, possibly in a late model white Mustang.

Mary Muncie (32:55)

It was too late. The shooter escaped. That night, cities across the country erupted into riots. Some of them turned violent. President Lyndon B. Johnson addressed the nation.

Dexter King (33:07)

America is shocked and saddened by the brutal slaying tonight of Dr. Martin Luther King. I ask every citizen to reject the blind violence that has struck Dr. King, who lived by non violence.

Mary Muncie (33:27)

More than 150,000 people gathered in Atlanta for King's funeral. They packed King's ebenezer Baptist Church and filled the streets outside.

Dexter King (33:37)

Fear thou not, for I am with thee.

Martin Luther King Jr. (33:43)

Be not dismayed,

Dexter King (33:47)

for I am thy God.

Mary Muncie (33:50)

In the investigation, police dusted the rifle in the room near the common bathroom for prints and matched them to escaped convict James Earl Ray. They also found a radio with his prisoner number on it and a newspaper showing King's schedule. Police searched for Ray for two months before they found him at Heathrow Airport in London. Ray confessed to everything and pleaded guilty, but he recanted just three days later, saying a man named Raul had framed him. The courts never gave that much weight and sentenced him to 99 years in prison. He didn't get a trial because of his guilty plea. But King's son Dexter and some others believe that there was a larger conspiracy at play and that Ray is innocent. In 1997, Dexter met with Ray. NBC published the conversation.

Dexter King (34:43)

I believe you, and my family believes you, and we are going to do everything in our power to try and make sure that justice will prevail.

Mary Muncie (34:55)

Some people believe that federal agencies like the CIA and FBI conspired to kill King because he had too much political power. And they say Raul coordinated the attack and lured a vulnerable Ray to be the fall guy. But neither King's death nor the lingering questions over culpability have quelled his legacy.

Dexter King (35:15)

By the time he was killed, the whole future of the United States had changed as a result of the civil rights movement.

Mary Muncie (35:22)

Taylor Branch is a historian who wrote a book on King's life. Branch says King was born in a world where black people were invisible. And although that frustrated him deeply, he always called for nonviolent action.

Dexter King (35:36)

His message was that race relations in the United States have been governed by violence. You know, slavery was purely violence.

Mary Muncie (35:42)

But King said America was a nation of politics and voting, not violence, and that we should follow Christ's example of rejecting it.

Dexter King (35:51)

So Dr. King kind of put one foot in the scripture and one foot in the Constitution. Equal souls and equal votes. And that message kind of set a lot of change in motion, not just for between black and white, but between men and women.

Mary Muncie (36:06)

After his death, Branch says, nonviolence became passe. The Black Panthers gained popularity as a militant group aiming to end police brutality against black people. And while some elected officials tried to support King's vision for equal rights, others perpetuated many of the unjust systems. It would take years of slow work to bring many of those systems forward and bring America closer to King's dream. Those who knew King say he didn't expect to live past 30 and he would gladly give his life to the cause. He gave his last speech in Memphis the night before he died.

Martin Luther King Jr. (36:43)

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now because I've been to the mountaintop.

Solicitor General John Sauer (36:57)

Not on mine.

Martin Luther King Jr. (37:02)

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain and I've looked over and I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the promised land. So I'm happy tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of

Dexter King (37:55)

the coming of the Lord.

Mary Muncie (37:58)

That's this week's world history book. I'm Mary Muncie.

Nick Eicher (38:16)

Tomorrow, the latest on the war in Iran and a story of escape. How one woman got away from homelessness, meth addiction and exploitation. That and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Eicher.

Mary Reichardt (38:28)

And I'm Mary Reichardt. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says, let the heavens praise your wonders, O Lord. Your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies can be compared to the Lord? Who among the heavenly beings is like the Lord? A God greatly to be feared in the council of the holy ones and awesome above all who are around him? O Lord, God of hosts, who is mighty as you are, O Lord, with your Father faithfulness all around you. Verses 5 through 8 of Psalm 89. Go now in grace and peace.