Nick Eicher (4:34)

If they want this barrage of attacks.

David Bonson (4:36)

To stop, which all Palestinians do at this point, then they need to release the hostages.

David Axelrod (4:42)

Israel and Hamas are holding ceasefire talks in Qatar, but reportedly appear far apart. Israel says it'll keep fighting until Hamas is destroyed or disarmed and sent into exile. Investigators say the 25 year old who bombed a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California over the weekend authored what they call anti pro life writings. Guy Edward Bartkus left behind writings professing a sentiment that the world should not be populated. Bartkus died when he detonated a car bomb outside the clinic. Four others were hurt, but all the embryos at the clinic were saved, thanks to a speedy response from firefighters, police and FBI bomb techs. According to the FBI's Akil Davis, we are able to save all of the embryos at this facility. Good guys 1 bad guys 0. Investigators say Bartkus tried to livestream the bombing, but the video didn't upload. The explosion gutted the clinic, though. Clinic leaders say staff were safe and there were no patients inside. House Republicans held a rare Sunday night committee meeting trying to get their so called big beautiful tax bill back on track. The House Budget Committee failed to advance the bill Friday despite the setback. House Speaker Mike Johnson tells Fox News he's confident the full House will meet his goal of passing the measure by the end of the week. We're on track, working around the clock to deliver this nation shaping legislation for.

Nick Eicher (6:15)

The American people as soon as possible.

David Axelrod (6:17)

The bill would extend the tax cuts from President Trump's first term, plus add several new ones. But several House Republicans are concerned it spends too much money and doesn't enforce new work requirements for Medicaid soon enough. I'm Mark Mellinger. Straight ahead, legal docket. Can a single judge block the president's move on birthright citizenship? Plus, the seismic importance of the Council of Nicaea for Christianity in today's world history book. This is the world and everything in it.

Mary Reichardt (7:01)

It's the world and everything in it for this 19th day of May, 2025. So glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Mary Reichert.

Nick Eicher (7:09)

And I'm Nick Eicher. Time now for legal docket. The Supreme Court typically saves its most controversial decisions for the end of the term, late June, early July. And this year, it reserved its most controversial oral argument for last.

Mary Reichardt (7:27)

That's right. The argument is the last one for this year, and it came last Thursday. Three cases combined into one, all centered on a single can the president end birthright citizenship, meaning automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in the country to illegal immigrants or to those holding temporary visas?

Nick Eicher (7:47)

Now, President Trump says he can. His executive order suggests he can. And so he did. But before the policy could take effect, three federal judges said he couldn't. Single federal district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state. Each one declared the order unconstitutional. Each, each one froze the policy, not just for the parties that came into their courtrooms, but for the entire country. President Trump's legal team says federal trial judges can't do that. U.S. solicitor General John Sauer at the Supreme Court.

David Axelrod (8:23)

Such injunctions prevent the percolation of novel and difficult legal questions. They encourage rampant forum shopping. They require judges to make rushed, high stakes, low information decisions.

Nick Eicher (8:35)

In other words, let the lower courts duke it out. Let novel ideas percolate. Don't short circuit the process. Sauer also pointed to Article 3 of the Constitution in relevant part that says that judges are to resolve disputes for the parties actually before them in legal language. Their job is to adjudicate cases and controversies. They're not national policymakers. Justice Clarence Thomas asked a practical historical.

David Axelrod (9:03)

Question, General, when were the first universal injunctions used? We believe that the best reading of that is what you said in Trump against Hawaii, which is that Wartz in 1963 was really the first universal injunction. So we survived until the 1960s without universal injunctions that's exactly correct.

Mary Reichardt (9:23)

And in fact, then came a tense moment. Justice Sonia Sotomayor repeatedly cut Sauer off. Chief Justice John Roberts then cut her off. Have a listen.

David Axelrod (9:33)

We are not claiming that because we're conceding that there could be an inappropriate case. Only a class only. Can I hear the rest of his answer.

Mary Reichardt (9:41)

The court's liberal wing homed in on access to justice. How can an illegal alien or child of one get relief without the nationwide injunction? Justice Sotomayor was skeptical that class actions or individual cases would be fast enough, so she posed a hypothetical about guns. So when a new president orders that.

David Axelrod (10:03)

Because there's so much gun violence going on in the country and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns, we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court.

Mary Reichardt (10:25)

Sauer responded that courts can and do certify emergency class actions. He said immigrant advocacy groups can seek class status, quickly adding that courts could limit the injunction to just those affected rather than applying it to everyone, including people who aren't even part of the case.

Nick Eicher (10:43)

But Justice Elena Kagan didn't like that idea either. She wondered, how, in practical terms do you enforce a consistent rule of citizenship without some form of nationwide relief?

David Axelrod (10:56)

Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit? Are there alternatives? How long does it take?

Nick Eicher (11:07)

How do we get to the result.

David Axelrod (11:08)

That there is a single rule of citizenship that is the rule that we've historically applied rather than the rule that the EO would have us do?

Mary Reichardt (11:16)

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed harder to her the government's position undermines the rule of law.

David Axelrod (11:23)

Your argument seems to turn our justice system into a catch me if you can kind of regime where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights? I would think we'd want the system to move as quickly as possible to reach the merits of the issue and maybe have this court decide whether or not the government is in entitled to do this under the law. Wouldn't having universal injunctions actually facilitate that?

Mary Reichardt (11:56)

But others on the bench saw danger in the opposite direction. Justice Samuel Alito said too much power in the hands of a single judge is risky.

David Axelrod (12:05)

The practical problem is that there are 680 district court judges and they are dedicated and they are scholarly, and I'm not impugning their motives in any way.

Mary Reichardt (12:15)

But you know, sometimes they're wrong.

David Axelrod (12:17)

And all Article 3 judges are vulnerable to an occupational disease, which is the disease of thinking that I am right and I can do whatever I want.

Nick Eicher (12:31)

He added that appellate courts are naturally restrained. Judges there answer to one another, but a single trial judge, as Justice Alito put it, a monarch in that courtroom.

Mary Reichardt (12:43)

All of this debate leads back to a deeper constitutional question, one that didn't get as much time in oral argument. What does the 14th Amendment actually mean? Here's what it says in 18 simple words. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens. The language of the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, just after the Civil War. The 13th Amendment was the abolition of slavery. The 15th banned voting discrimination based on race. These are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. The goal was to make clear that former slaves and their children were citizens, reversing the Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision, which said they weren't.

Nick Eicher (13:31)

So the debate now is over five words in the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. And that's why this case matters so much. The Trump administration says children born to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore are not automatic citizens. The other side says that interpretation ignores 150 years of precedent and plain meaning.

David Axelrod (13:57)

The argument here is that the president is violating not just one, but by.

Mary Reichardt (14:04)

My count, four established Supreme Court precedents. One of those rulings said that even if your parents are in the country illegally, if you were born here, then you're a citizen. Sauer disagreed. He said the 14th Amendment citizenship clause was not written with illegal immigration in mind.

David Axelrod (14:22)

Our primary contention is that the citizenship clause related to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens.

Nick Eicher (14:28)

Two lawyers took on the administration arguing for 20 Democratic led states against Trump's executive order was New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum arguing for immigrant rights groups and five women who were pregnant with babies who have A lot riding on the outcome of this case was Kelsey Corcoran.

Mary Reichardt (14:48)

The executive orders stripping of citizenship from US born children is contrary not only to the 14th amendment's clean text, but.

David Axelrod (14:55)

Also our common law history, this court's.

Mary Reichardt (14:58)

Precedent, a federal statute, and over a.

David Axelrod (15:00)

Century of executive branch practice.

Nick Eicher (15:02)

But her argument assumes the citizenship question is settled. Sauer's side kept pointing to historical context. Feigenbaum, meanwhile, focused on the practical problems of a non universal rule puts chaos.

David Axelrod (15:16)

On the ground where people's citizenship turns on and off when you cross state lines. If ICE has initiated a removal proceeding, when you Live in Philly and. And you move to Camden. I suppose the ice removal is supposed to turn off at that point, potentially because your citizenship status has changed.

Mary Reichardt (15:30)

Then came the elephant in the room. Forum shopping. That is to say, lawyers picking courts where they're most likely to win sweeping injunctions. The numbers back it up. During Biden's term, 28 universal injunctions. During Trump's first term, 64.

Nick Eicher (15:48)

And this year, since January 20th, district.

David Axelrod (15:51)

Courts have now issued 40 universal injunctions against the federal government, including 35 from the same five judicial districts. This is a bipartisan problem that has now spanned the last five presidential administrations.

Mary Reichardt (16:05)

Sauer called it bipartisan. But others will see it differently. They are likely to see a coordinated legal resistance to President Trump's agenda.

Nick Eicher (16:13)

And the numbers do suggest a pattern. 92% of the judges who blocked President Trump's executive orders were appointed by Democrat presidents. And on the other hand, every single judge who blocked a Biden order was appointed by a Republican.

Mary Reichardt (16:29)

That's a problem. Researching this piece, I came across an article in Bloomberg Law written by a retired U.S. district judge. Paul Grimm is now a professor at Duke Law School. So I called him up.

David Axelrod (16:42)

There are mechanisms that could be put into place to help mitigate the forum shopping. You can make it so that you.

Nick Eicher (16:49)

Have three judge panels.

David Axelrod (16:51)

You see that in election cases. So you could pass a law by Congress. And the House has already got a bill that they're looking at here on that that says that if this kind of a case involving a nationwide policy by, you know, a president, that in order to do that, you've got to pick randomly three judges from three different districts across the United States so that all, you know, two out of three have to agree in the ruling. You could do that. Some people have said you should only let appellate courts decide that they should have their restrictive ability. And if you had to have a random panel, like a judge panel that they already use in some kinds of cases, and you made the selection be from different circuits, then you would really help to tamp down that ability of one judge to step in and make that kind of a change.

Mary Reichardt (17:39)

That's a longer term fix. But for now, it's the Supreme Court's move. And ironically, some of the liberal justices who now defend universal injunctions didn't always. Back in 2022, Justice Kagan said this at Northwestern.

David Axelrod (17:54)

And you look at something like that and you think, that can't be right. That one district court, whether it's in the Trump years, people used to go.

Nick Eicher (18:04)

To the Northern District of California and.

David Axelrod (18:06)

In the Biden years, they go to Texas. And it just can't be right that.

Nick Eicher (18:10)

One district judge can stop a nationwide.

David Axelrod (18:13)

Policy in its tracks and leave it.

Nick Eicher (18:16)

Stopped for the years that it takes to go through a normal process.

Mary Reichardt (18:22)

I think most people agree that it can't be right for one judge to do that. And I think the justices will sidestep answering whether children born to illegal aliens in the US Are citizens. I think they'll hand down a narrow ruling that will limit universal injunctions in some way.

Nick Eicher (18:39)

And winding up today's legal docket, the Supreme Court handed down two key opinions last week. Both of these deal with government use of force or authority, and both of them draw important lines around what's constantly constitutionally permitted. First is Barnes versus Felix. We dove deeply into this case back in February and we will link to that story in today's transcript. The case involved a fatal police shooting during a traffic stop. Barnes was the driver, Felix the policeman. Officer Felix shot and killed Barnes after Barnes drove off with Felix standing on the door sill of the car. Lower courts ruled in favor of the officer, considering only the terrifying few seconds before before he pulled the trigger. That's known as the moment of threat doctrine.

Mary Reichardt (19:27)

But a unanimous Supreme Court said that is too narrow. Writing for the court, Justice Kagan said judges need to look at the totality of the circumstances, meaning what led up to the moment of threat I mentioned the ruling was unanimous against the police officer's position, and it was. But Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion and Justices Thomas, Alito and Barrett joined in. Kavanaugh wrote, when a driver abruptly pulls away during a traffic stop, an officer has no particularly good or safe options.

Nick Eicher (20:00)

But still, the ruling takes no position on whether the shooting was justified. It simply says that courts cannot limit their review to a single snapshot. The second case involves the Trump administration's deportation policy. It's titled AARP versus Trump. Now, the initialism might put you in mind of a well known senior citizens group, but that AARP is not involved. Instead, it stands for an anonymized name of a person accused of membership in the foreign terrorist organization Trend Aragua.

Mary Reichardt (20:35)

This ruling was 7 to 2, and the court ruled against the administration here. The Supreme Court blocked the removal of Venezuelan detainees under the Alien Enemies Act. The court said such people have to receive notice and time to seek relief before deportation. But the two dissenters, Justices Alito and Thomas, pushed back hard, warning that the court overstepped its bounds by intervening without jurisdiction and by second guessing urgent decisions by the executive branch.

Nick Eicher (21:06)

Both cases now head back to lower courts to be considered with the new guidance the Supreme Court has given.

Mary Reichardt (21:13)

And that's this week's legal docket.

Nick Eicher (21:31)

Additional support comes from Dort University, whose.

David Axelrod (21:35)

Online MBA and MPA programs prepare leaders for lasting impact. Dort University until all is made new. And from Water's edge, Kingdom Investments, personal investments that build churches 4.75% APY on a six month term. Watersedge.com investor.

Mary Reichardt (22:08)

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

Nick Eicher (22:14)

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 to you, David.

David Bonson (22:26)

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

Nick Eicher (22:28)

I'd like to talk about your dividend cafe this week pegged to the retirement news about Warren Buffett. Now that's a little bit of an old story, but so much has pushed that news to the background and I think we should spend some time on that because I think there's quite a bit to be gained from studying Buffett and I'd like to leave some time for that. So I think let's begin with kind of a lightning round on economic news from the past week and we can open with that 90 day trade war pause between the US and China. We talked last week about the de escalatory nature of that meeting and that you wanted to look more deeply into the details. So what can you tell us this week, having read a bit more and talked with people?

David Bonson (23:11)

Well, what's interesting is that the announcement that came from Secretary Besant from Switzerland, really just right after we spoke last week on Monday morning didn't give a lot of detail, but yet it gave all the information I think that markets needed, which is we're in a significant de escalatory phase. The president had said, hey, I might lower 145% tariffs to 80%. And then he ended up getting getting rid of them altogether. I mean, keeping the 10 and 20 that was already on. There's a 10% tariff both countries have on each other and then this 20% fentanyl deal. But other than that, getting rid of all of the tariff escalation he had done since April 2nd. And I do think that there's a lot of wood to chop as far as the various details that go outside of the tariff rate. What are they going to do to commit to certain new markets being opened? What are they going to do in terms of protecting intellectual property the currency was really not in any of the comments that the secretary made last week. So there's a lot to still be worked out. But what is very clear to me is anybody who is hoping that on the other side of this we would be trading with China less, I think is going to be very disappointed. They may very well get a good deal and some improvement in terms. I think that that's a great thing to hope. But when all said and done, it looks like where they're headed is trying to increase bilateral trade. And that's a very different place than what the administration was talking about a month, a month and a half ago.

Nick Eicher (24:53)

So there was a big international trip with President Trump. A lot of talk about deals and anything you want to say about any of that?

David Bonson (25:00)

Well, yeah, I think in a lot of ways it was a successful trip for the president, at least politically. I am continually surprised because some of the things that get announced I tend to be a fan of. And yet I'm always a little surprised that some of the base for the president is a fan of. I think, you know, a lot of the economic nationalism and kind of right wing populism that has been really big groundswells behind the popular nature of President Trump. They don't go with big international deals. And you're going to do this for us and we're going to do this for you and expanding these types of markets and whatnot in Middle Eastern countries and let alone, you know, the other countries like China we were talking about. And yet that's sort of the type of stuff that the president's doing. He does like deals and he especially likes the announcement of deals. And he announced quite a few things last week. And so, you know, it's very early to say where we're headed on Russia, Ukraine stuff. That seems to have hit another snag. The possibility of trying to get a deal with Iran that's going to look a lot like what the prior Obama administration's deal with Iran had, but maybe with more inspector accountability. That's very interesting. And it could help the president's goal of wanting to lower oil prices, although it's certainly not going to make oil producers in Oklahoma and Texas happy. So all that to say some of these things are going to be beneficial for the president, but they're not necessarily going to be beneficial to the people who support the president.

Nick Eicher (26:30)

Well, David, finally let's step back from the swirl of markets and geopolitics and dig a little deeper, namely reflection on calling compounding and what creates value over Time. David, you devoted your entire Dividend Cafe to an understanding of the famed investor Warren Buffett. Now, of course, it's not new news that Buffett announced he's stepping down as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, but I do think that there are going to be in the months remaining before he actually steps out at the end of the year, there will be numerous attempts to try to derive lessons. And I really appreciate yours in Dividend Cafe because you wrote not merely about Buffett's wealth, but what's behind it. Not just decades of disciplined investing, but something more profoundly human. Let me quote a bit from your piece. Economics is the study of human action around the allocation of scarce resources. And human beings were created by God with tremendous capacity to do great things. And in those things, there is a collection of inspiration, wisdom, resources, experience, and capability in human beings that can change our lives and careers. So when Buffett's story is told rightly, it's not just about financial capital, but also about social and spiritual capital. We're talking about networks and trust and mentorship and shared ideas. Or as you put it, information and analysis compound at one rate, but relationships and social capital compound at an even greater rate. So there's a lot there. David, would you unpack that for us as we go out?

David Bonson (28:18)

Yes, and I provided the caveat, too, that there's so many things in Warren Buffett's worldview that are hostile to the Christian worldview. And yet I was making the point that whether one is a believer or not, when they study Warren Buffett, you could focus on, if you want, the incredible skill he had at security analysis, his hard work ethic early on in his life, and ability to save and invest and do the blocking and tackling that led to the accumulation of capital. That was first a little, and then it became more, and then it became more still. And those are valuable lessons. But what you also see is throughout decades upon decades of compounding, not merely of the money he accumulated, but of the relationships, connections, networks. A person in Omaha, Nebraska, developing really thick networks in financial capital, like New York, technology epicenter, like Silicon Valley, energy, pockets of the country and the Midwest. And again, whether it be in the domain of politics or media or finance or technology, he surrounded himself with people and learned from them and had great thick conversations. And there's something to this idea of thick networks where it's not just transactional. You're not saying, I want to befriend this person so that I can go do a business deal with them. You're befriending them and learning from them with absolutely no agenda whatsoever. And then 17 years later, an opportunity organically presents itself because that's the way the world works, this organic, spontaneous reality. And we do well to invest in relationships. We do well to, to contribute to others, not just to have people around us that teach us, but to be around others, teaching them, being a resource to them. These things feed on themselves. And I think most of us know it, we can observe it. But Buffett just happens to be a person who any study of his life and career demonstrates it in spades. And I think it's an important lesson for all of us within the Christian worldview to appreciate that it's part of God's created design, that this human social interaction is at the very heart of markets. And today they want to teach young people in schools that markets are all math and science and computer inputs. Well, Warren Buffett says otherwise.

Nick Eicher (30:42)

And I think you do too, coming on here each week, sharing your wealth with our listening audience. So I appreciate that. David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer at the Bonson Group. Do not miss his Dividend Cafe this week, all about Warren Buffett. David writes regularly for World Opinions and As I say, dividendcafe.com David, thank you so much. And we'll see you next week.

David Bonson (31:06)

Thanks so much, Nick.

Nick Eicher (31:33)

Today is Monday, May 19th. Good morning. This is the world and everything in it from Listener supported World Radio. I'm Nick Icker.

Mary Reichardt (31:41)

And I'm Mary Reichard. Up next, the world history book Today, the story behind the Nicene Creed. This month, 1700 years ago, a Roman emperor invites hundreds of Christian leaders to meet together. The purpose, to debate and hopefully come to a consensus on a doctrine splitting the church. World correspondent Caleb Weldy has the story.

David Axelrod (32:10)

Three centuries have gone by since a man named Jesus walked the streets and countryside of Judea, Samaria and Galilee. Jesus made statements like I and the Father are one, and whoever has seen me has seen the Father. And he says, before Abraham was I am theologian and apologist R.C. sproul. It's because they understood what he was saying that they took up stones to kill him, saying, this man, being a man, declares himself to be God. Despite severe persecution, the disciples of Jesus spread the good news of the kingdom of heaven. And the church grows rapidly across the Roman Empire. Many false teachings test the faithful. In the second and third centuries, modalism begins to take hold. Basically the belief that the one God takes on different forms at different times. So sometimes he's the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Spirit. A bishop named Arius attempts to refute this heresy by saying the Father, Son and Holy Spirit do coexist, but that the Son and Spirit were actually created by the Father. According to Arius, Jesus was made before anything else was made. But he is not eternal. And because he's not eternal, he is not equal with God. R.C. sproul, once again speaking of Arius, who also asserted, the Logos is less than God, but greater than man. And because of his obedience, he is quote, adopted by the Father as the Father's Son. He was not always the Son of God, but rather his sonship is something he virtually earns. For centuries, Christians have been believing in the full divinity of Jesus, but that doesn't stop Arius ideas from spreading widely. To be fair to someone like Arius, he's a brilliant priest, preacher. They even say songwriter. Robert Barron is a Catholic bishop and he's founder of Word on Fire Ministries. And he expressed his theological ideas in popular songs so that people would sing them in, you know, public places and so on. Now, Emperor Constantine, who claims to be a Christian, is currently trying to unite his empire. What was bugging Constantine, who wasn't particularly pious, was, but was. Wait a minute. The thing I want to use to unite my empire, they're now fighting with each other. So I got to get these people united. Constantine invites every Christian bishop to Nicaea. He wants them to hold a council to work out their differences. There were 1800 bishops scattered throughout the empire. 300 show up. Everybody at the Council of Nicaea believed Jesus was God. It was just a question of what that meant. Wesley Huff is director of Apologetics Canada and a biblical manuscript scholar. They're seeing Scripture and they're trying to figure out, okay, what language do we use to articulate what we're seeing? In one corner was Arius arguing that because of the begotten language in the New Testament, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were created and not eternal nor equal with the Father. In the other corner was Athanasius arguing, scripture is clear. The Father is described as Yahweh God, The Son is described as Yahweh God, and the Spirit is described as Yahweh God. We don't believe in three Yahwehs, right? Only one Yahweh. Hear Israel. The Lord is God. The Lord is one God. The council debates for two months. Finally, in August, they vote. And Arius, who voted for himself, only had two other bishops on his side. So it wasn't close. It was like 312 to 3. The bishops leave Nicaea with a common creed, where councils would add to and modify the creed some, but version one reads like we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things, visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten. Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of light, true God of true God, Begotten, not made of one essence with the Father by whom all things were made, who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried. And the final third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end, and in the Holy Spirit. Amen. So why is this so important? Constantine may have had geopolitical goals, but the creed accomplishes much more than that. Not only does it clarify Christ's divine nature, but it begins to define shared orthodoxy and the trinitarian foundations of the various branches of the Christian Church. The Trinity is all there, right down to Jesus baptism, where the Father, you know is heard from heaven, the Spirit descends. And then you have the Son being baptized. And then we're told to then baptize in the onoma, the singular noun, name of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And so you have the one name. But then three persons are described. We think it's so important that every single week at our liturgy, we Catholics get up and say, arius, you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Right. He's not just a high creature. He's God from God, light from light, true God from true God. And because he's one in being with the Father, he can save us. That's why it matters. He is the King of the universe, the supreme monarch. And there's only one of them begotten, comma, not made co eternal and co substantial with the Father. In the beginning was the Word.

Nick Eicher (38:41)

And.

David Axelrod (38:41)

The Word was with God. And the Word was God for world. I'm Caleb Welde. Audio courtesy of Ligonier Ministries, Wesley Huff, the Daily Wire, and Word on Fire Ministries.

Nick Eicher (39:17)

Tomorrow, more on that recent HHS report on protecting minors from gender treatments. That and more tomorrow. I'm Nick Iger.

Mary Reichardt (39:26)

And I'm Mary Reichstag. 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, formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world whose slaves you want to be Once More? Verses 8 and 9 of Galatians chapter 4 go now in grace and peace.