← The World and Everything In It
The World and Everything In It
7.6.26 Birthright citizenship, Trump’s finances, and America’s forgotten founder
00:35:43
Loading summary
Transcript105 lines
- [00:01]
A
Before we get to today's program, one more word of thanks because we simply cannot thank you enough.
- [00:07]
B
No, we really can't. The generosity that you showed during World's June giving drive has been deeply encouraging to all of us who do this work every day. You reminded us just how many people believe that sound journalism grounded in facts and biblical truth is worth supporting.
- [00:24]
A
We don't take that support for granted. So, so again, thank you. We're grateful for your generosity and grateful to have you with us. Good morning. Today's Supreme Court dissent, is it tomorrow's majority opinion?
- [00:44]
C
I see this being the silver lining going forward.
- [00:47]
B
We'll wrap up the last of the big decisions today on legal docket. Also today, the Monday money beat halfway through the year. How are economic predictions going? We'll talk it over with David Bonson and the world history book. Rediscovering a founding father.
- [01:03]
D
He is absolutely animated by his Christian faith. That is a central part of his life.
- [01:16]
A
It's Monday, July 6th. This is the world and everything in it from listener supported World Radio. I'm Mary Reichert.
- [01:23]
B
And I'm Nick Iger. Good morning.
- [01:26]
A
Up next, Kent Covington with today's news.
- [01:30]
E
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to visit the White House once again in the coming days amid some friction with President Trump. The two leaders are at odds over Israel's military strikes in Lebanon. But Netanyahu said Sunday, 99% of the
- [01:45]
B
time we see eye to eye, but
- [01:47]
F
as any in any family, in any close friendship, there are sometimes differences of
- [01:52]
G
opinion and we discuss them openly.
- [01:55]
B
I can tell you in a free
- [01:56]
F
spirit, and usually we resolve them, too.
- [01:59]
E
As the US Pushes to seal a peace deal with Iran, Trump has publicly bristled at Israel's ongoing attacks in Lebanon, reportedly telling Netanyahu to stop. Iranian leaders are threatening to walk away from negotiations unless Israel halts its strikes against the Iran backed Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon. But Netanyahu said whatever happens with the peace talks, one thing is certain.
- [02:21]
B
Deal or no deal, as long as
- [02:23]
F
I'm prime minister, Iran will not have nuclear weapons.
- [02:27]
E
Meantime, those negotiations between the US And Iran went quiet over the weekend. They paused for the funeral of Iran's late supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Hundreds of thousands filled the streets of Tehran, many chanting death to America and demanding revenge for the February airstrike that killed him. His sons and Iran's top officials marched with them. And a religious poet worked up the crowd. Some there called for the deaths of President Trump and Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu. But one man was notably absent from the funeral. Iran's new supreme leader. Khamenei's own son, Mojtaba, who still has not been seen in public since his father's death. Believed to be in hiding after being wounded in the same strike that killed his father. American fighter jets roaring over the nation's capital as the Blue Angels performed a flyover marking America's 250th birthday. Just one part of a massive celebration over the weekend. One woman said she traveled from Arizona to take part.
- [03:30]
C
I thought it was amazing. We've been planning this trip for two years now and we've waited in the hot, hot, hot, and then we hid in the museum and then we stood in the rain and it was worth every minute.
- [03:42]
H
It was great.
- [03:43]
E
Hundreds of thousands packed the National Mall to enjoy live music and witness a record shattering fireworks display. More than 850, 50,000 births from 10 sites. President Trump also marked the milestone.
- [03:55]
F
At 250 years old, we may be the oldest constitutional republic on earth, but our country is just getting started because
- [04:05]
B
the best is yet to come.
- [04:08]
E
From New York to Boston, cities marked the day with parades, cookouts and fireworks. And in Philadelphia, the birthplace of independence, officials buried a time capsule filled with Items from all 50 states. Park Superintendent Steve Sims the time capsule
- [04:24]
F
we bury today is more than an artifact. It is a message carried forward through time.
- [04:29]
D
It reflects a nation still striving, still debating, still building, still expanding the meaning of its founding ideals.
- [04:38]
E
The capsule will not be opened until America's 500th birthday. A prominent Chinese pastor is free and back with his family in the United States after President Trump pressed his case with Beijing. Ezra Jinmingri leads the underground Zion Church, one of China's largest. The communist government locked him up along with 17 other leaders last October in a sweeping crackdown. Now, less than two months after Trump raised his case with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Jin has landed in Los Angeles. Chinese officials said he was freed as a goodwill gesture around the Fourth of July. But at least eight fellow Zion Church members remain behind bars at the weekend box office. The Minions are back.
- [05:19]
G
You wrote a monster movie.
- [05:23]
B
What are you going to use for your monster?
- [05:29]
E
Latest animated Minions movie debuted with an estimated $36 million. That was good enough for first place, but still short of early expectations. Toy Story 5 finished second, earning another $31 million or so. It has now topped three quarters of a billion dollars globally. I'm Cat Covington, and straight ahead, we'll have a look at the last of the big recent Supreme Court decisions on legal docket. And later rediscovering a founding father on the world history book. This is the world and everything in it.
- [06:11]
B
It's the world and everything in it for this 6th day of July 2026. We're so glad you've joined us today. Good morning. I'm Nick Ickert.
- [06:19]
A
And I'm Mary Reichert. Time now for legal docket. The Supreme Court has closed the books on another term, dozens of cases. The questions involving presidential power, immigration, religious liberty, free speech, and the reach of government. The answers left the justices divided, sometimes sharply. But step back from the individual wins and losses, and a definite pattern comes into view, whether you agreed with the outcomes or not. Again and again, it was clear that the Court had gone back to first principles. What do the words of the Constitution actually mean? Two opinions of the Court handed down on the final day bring that question into sharp focus.
- [07:00]
B
First was birthright citizenship. President Trump sought to end automatic citizenship given to children born in the US to temporary visitors and migrants in the country illegally. So he issued a sweeping executive order to that effect. The court struck that down. Five justices said the executive order violated the Constitution. A sixth Justice, Brett Kavanaugh, said that it violated federal law. That distinction matters. The constitutional ruling largely takes the question out of the hands of Congress. And if it stands, changing birthright citizenship would likely require changing the Constitution itself.
- [07:42]
A
So the executive order was struck down six to three. But on the meaning of the constitutional question, the Court split by a single vote of 5 to 4. At the center of the constitutional fight were six words in the 14th Amendment, subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To break down the disagreement over those words, I spoke with Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.
- [08:05]
C
What this case comes down to is a difference in opinions about what the original meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. So you have the majority in this case that their view is that we adopted as a nation the old English common law view of jurisdiction and allegiance, which is basically, if you were born here and you weren't, say, like the child of a diplomat or the child of an invading army, that you by virtue of that birth, owed natural allegiance to the sovereign who owed you protection in return.
- [08:38]
A
Under that reading, illegal aliens are still subject to American jurisdiction. They can be arrested, sued, taxed. But the dissenters read the history differently.
- [08:49]
C
The view of the Trump administration and full disclosure, the view that I think is historically correct here is that the subjection and the jurisdiction that they're talking about is actually more Significant. It's not just can we prosecute you for laws that you violate? But it's talking about a deeper tie of allegiance and a political jurisdiction, but that it had a deeper, again, more profound meaning than just what were you here and did you have to obey our laws? It's talking about a political and complete jurisdiction.
- [09:20]
A
So both sides went back to the original meaning of the same six words and arrived at opposite answers. What surprised Swearer was just how much the legal debate has moved and how
- [09:31]
C
quickly, really, when it comes down to it, it was 5, 4 on the constitutional question of what the 14th Amendment actually means. And I think if you asked many people, even just 18 months ago, they would have said it would have been closer to 9 0. And I think that's a testament to the strength of the historical arguments that the Trump administration put forward and a lot of the scholarship that had been done even in just the last year or two on this issue.
- [09:59]
B
In other words, the executive order lost. But an argument many legal scholars once considered nearly settled produced a bare one vote constitutional majority. And Swearer thinks the four dissenters may have laid the groundwork for a future majority.
- [10:15]
C
The dissenting opinions. It's such a good and compelling job of presenting that historical evidence about what that phrase meant to the generation that drafted it. I think going forward, you're actually going to see that dissenting opinion morph into a majority understanding. And so I see this being the silver lining that going forward, these dissenting opinions continue to change minds in the legal field.
- [10:41]
B
Her colleague at Advancing American Freedom, Hans von Spakowski, points to one exception in the majority's own reasoning that helps explain why that debate may not be over.
- [10:51]
G
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, and he says that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment requires that anyone born in the United states is a U.S. citizen. But then, of course, he makes an exception for the children of diplomats, even though there's no such exception in the law. What they're talking about is territorial jurisdiction. In other words, if a German tourist comes to the United States for a two week visit, obviously he's subject to our territorial jurisdiction. If he robs a bank, he can be criminally prosecuted. What that term meant in the 14th Amendment, according to the sponsors of it, being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant you owed your political allegiance to the United States.
- [11:41]
B
And von Spakovsky points to a historical irony in the majority's reliance on English common law.
- [11:47]
G
Alito points out that it's quite ironic that as we're celebrating the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence from Britain that Justice Roberts says that, oh, we've adopted what the British rule was on citizenship, which even they've abandoned.
- [12:09]
B
Justice Clarence Thomas cited one of the Senate sponsors of the 14th Amendment who explicitly said the clause would not apply to teachers, temporary sojourners.
- [12:19]
A
And now onto the First Amendment. And a question on which the Court's Conservative majority did agree. Can the government limit what a political party spends to help its own candidates? In National Republican Senatorial Committee versus the Federal Election Commission, the Court said no. In a 6 to 3 decision, the court overruled a precedent from 2001.
- [12:41]
B
The decision said restricting what a political party can spend in direct coordination with its own candidates broadcast burdens political speech. Von Spakovsky is a former federal election commissioner who understands the mechanics of the
- [12:55]
G
various lawsuits they all sued, saying, look, this limit on coordinated expenditures is a violation of not only the First Amendment, but also our associational rights under the 14th Amendment. And you should overturn your 2001 decision that upheld it. And what the Supreme Court did is to say, you're right. Limiting coordinated expenses is a violation of the Constitution because the whole purpose of political parties is what to recruit, find and support their candidates. And by limiting that, you are limiting their political speech. Because, as you know, it takes money to talk. You want to run an ad, you want to run a hotel ballroom to speak. That costs money.
- [13:41]
B
The government argued the limits guard against corruption. The majority demanded evidence the restriction was actually necessary. And the dissenters saw a danger the majority did not. They argued sophisticated donors could find ways around the rules against earmarking campaign money. But Von Spakovsky says there's just one little problem with that argument. The lack of evidence.
- [14:05]
G
She neglects to mention that I think it's almost 30 states have no contribution limits in their state elections. And when this case went to trial, the Federal Election Commission's expert, who was the defendant in the case, couldn't cite a single example of that type of corruption as having ever occurred in any of those states or in the federal election process. Not a single example. So she's just speculating. And you don't violate the First Amendment based on speculation.
- [14:42]
A
That gets to the heart of the majority's reasoning. Government may have an interest in preventing corruption, but when it restricts political speech, the Court wants more than a prediction of what might go wrong. The majority also noted that campaign finance is far more transparent today than it was when Congress first put these restrictions in place.
- [15:02]
G
Why? Because of modern technology and the Internet. You can go to the website of the Federal Election Commission, where I used to be commissioner, you can look up any political party, any candidate, and immediately get who has given them money. When these disclosure requirements were first passed, you couldn't do that. You actually had to go physically to the office of the FEC in Washington to look that up.
- [15:28]
B
So in this case, the court put the burden on government to justify restricting speech and not on political parties to prove restriction unnecessary. And taken together, these two cases help to explain something both Swearer and von Spakovsky noticed about the term just ended.
- [15:45]
G
In the past, they were more amenable to allowing all kinds of government restrictions on First Amendment rights. They have really changed that. To have very strict scrutiny of anything done by the government that's going to restrict not only your ability to speak, but your associational rights.
- [16:04]
A
He sees another correction in immigration law.
- [16:07]
G
They really slapped down hard lower court judges in the immigration area. The court simply held that federal immigration statutes say exactly what they say and give the president the authority to enforce them.
- [16:24]
A
Suarer sees an even broader pattern. The justices may disagree over what the Constitution means, but increasingly, she says they are arguing over the meaning of the text and not simply the result they prefer.
- [16:37]
C
Even when the originalists disagree amongst themselves, which sometimes happens, you see this court as a whole continuing to insist that its job as judges is to analyze what these texts meant to the people who passed them, not what they wish it to be. And I think that's a good thing.
- [16:56]
A
And for Swearer, that changes how she measures wins and losses at the court.
- [17:00]
C
So I think on the whole, the American people won, though sometimes in specific cases, they didn't always win. You know, you look at the birthright citizenship case, you look at the the mail in ballots case, for example. I think the court got that wrong and the American people are worse off for it. But the American people win when the court continues to do, to the best of its ability, originalist analysis that is tying its job back to understanding what the law actually is and what it meant to the people who passed it, what those words meant at the time they were passed.
- [17:34]
A
And that's this week's legal docket.
- [17:47]
E
Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, where entrepreneurs and business experts invest in companies advancing the Gospel. More@ambassadorsimpact.com from Harbinger Tours, featuring CS Lewis, England and Ireland and Imperial Christmas in Budapest, Vienna and Prague. Harbinger tours.net and from the Lachman foundation, translator of the Amplified Bible, expanding words and phrases from the original languages. Amplifiedbible.com.
- [18:38]
A
Coming up next on the world and everything in it. The Monday Money beat.
- [18:44]
B
Time now to talk business, markets and the economy with financial analyst and advisor David Bonson. David heads up the wealth management firm the Bonsson Group and he is here now. Good morning, David.
- [18:56]
F
Well, good morning, Nick. Good to be with you.
- [18:58]
B
Well, David, with the holiday weekend behind us, we're officially into the second half of 2026. And before the break you went back and graded not exactly your predictions, but the big economic trends that you identified at the beginning of the year. And as you look back over the first six, the markets, AI jobs, the broader economy, what stood out to you the most?
- [19:22]
F
Well, when you look at the two biggest areas, the AI impact and the tug of war within the economy, as far as just data points competing as to whether or not we're moving forward or whether or not we're kind of stuck in the mud in the economy and those things really have been the two biggest themes so far this year. And I say that with a war having broken out at the beginning of March and a 1 point oil prices spiking over 100 and, and then doing kind of a round trip back and I don't think that people would have necessarily predicted it would play out this way. I think it's funny sometimes how this goes that I've been on this theme for a little while that the labor markets were incrementally encouraging me and looking a little bit better. And literally, Nick, last week as I was writing on Thursday, which was two days after the job openings, the jolts data had come out the day after the ADP private sector number come out on Thursday, before we got ready for the holiday weekend, we got one of those infamous jobs reports where not only was it about half of what was expected, but it went back and revised the good news from the last month or so, you know, down not, not altogether but, but tens of thousands of jobs less than had previously been reported. And so it's incredibly frustrating right now. I continue to hold on to the weekly jobless claims is the best data point we have. But as we sit here at the mid year point, I don't think the economy is doing great and I most certainly don't think the economy is doing terrible. I think it is in a kind of, you know, middle ground muddle through moment and as it pertains to investors, there's a lot of crazy stuff going on and then a lot of things that have been crazy that markets are starting to look at as crazy.
- [21:18]
B
Well, David, the jobs report came as a surprise and Then the downward revisions to prior months. And then you look at the unemployment rate dropping, which seems on the surface a good thing, but it happened for the wrong reason, people leaving the labor force. So here we go again on the labor force participation.
- [21:38]
G
Brutal.
- [21:38]
B
Yeah, you and I have talked again and again over the years about this and now it's back down to 61.5%, the lowest mark since March of 2021. And then we were still kind of talking about the COVID malaise and people simply not working. So a disappointing month for jobs is one thing, but able bodied people choosing not to work, that's a considerably deeper problem in the job market, isn't it?
- [22:05]
F
Well, the labor force doesn't really speak to the jobs picture and that might seem kind of ironic to people, but it speaks to the people picture. You know, the unemployment rate is telling you how many people that want a job and can't find one. The labor participation rate is telling you how many people don't want a job. And you can look at it in two different ways, but economically it doesn't speak to the economy not producing enough opportunity when there are jobs available and people don't want them. You know, the labor participation rate is back to the COVID number, but it is most certainly looks to me to be headed lower than that. And I would suggest that, you know, it's 61.5%. This isn't like a month over month kind of situation. You know, the trend line goes back to financial crisis and in all those years post crisis as it dipped from basically 67, 68% and got down to 63, then it dipped into the 61s during COVID it did come back up a bit, but now we're back here at 61, 61 and a half. There is always a portion of that that's addressable by, you know, perfectly understandable decisions. There's retired people that don't work, there are able bodied, there's a lot of single income homes with more traditional family structures. There are things like that. But what we're talking about here, Nick, and you and I've talked about this so many times over the years, but, but people can't stop talking about it is that there is a kind of trend that we've had in place that is broken, multi year broken and that what has broken it is able bodied, prime working age men that are choosing not to work. Millions.
- [24:05]
B
David, let's turn to trade now. The Trump administration declined this past week to renew the U.S. mexico, Canada trade agreement. This is the deal that President Trump negotiated in his first term to replace nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Nothing expires right now, but with the US as the loan holdout, we're into annual reviews and as I understand it, a 10 year clock toward expiration. Here's what I don't quite understand. The administration says that it wants companies to move supply chains out of Asia and into North America. But if the rules for North American trade are constantly up for negotiation, why would any company make that move?
- [24:51]
F
They wouldn't and they won't. And I think that this is a negotiating tactic for the President, but I don't know what it is he's negotiating for, but I think that he feels that by kind of hanging it over Mexico and Canada, he'll end up getting some better headline announcements out of it. But I think you're right that the over overall impact will be to disincentivize people that are utilizing Asian supply chains from utilizing North American. And of course, the clock is not in the President's favor because Mexico and China know that he has two years left in his term. So I don't think that there's a lot of leverage embedded there. But I also think that they're just going to continue with mostly status quo, which is why I don't think there's a big impact out of saying we're going to let this go year by year. For the most part, I think that it's just going to end up continuing to be business as usual. It's been a while since any trade threats have gotten any headline or response at all. This is one area where you might say that the hand got overplayed.
- [26:03]
B
Well, David, one other newsworthy item before we go today. President Trump's financial disclosure came out last week, almost 1,000 pages. Now, obviously President Trump was rich before he became a politician, but there was a Wall Street Journal editorial late last week that made the point that the problem is not wealth, it is profiting from the presidency. So how do you draw the line on this? When does legitimate private wealth become a conflict of interest? And do you see a problem in this disclosure here?
- [26:37]
F
Yeah, Nick, I see a major problem. But I'm gonna just pretend for a second that none of it's President Trump, that it, you know, it could be a Republican, it could be a Democrat, it could be a president that one loves or one hates or is in the middle. The question is not so much the wealth itself. As you point out, President Trump was wealthy before he came in. He was most certainly not this wealthy or this liquid. But, but he, you know, he was a wealthy person. But no, the issue to me in this is a, it's entirely unnecessary avoid the distrust in the public it creates and avoid the appearance and just force them to buy and hold index fund or, or buy and hold a bond fund or something along those lines. But thousands of trades with very niche companies specific to deals being done, it doesn't really matter. It looks awful. But the far bigger issue is with foreign governments, the crypto related matters with foreign governments. I think that we really want, not just for this president but for any future president, an avoidance of appearance of conflict and having special deals with people that end up getting pardoned and things like that. You know, some of it may very well be not, not above board. But even the stuff, if someone could say no, I think it is, it doesn't look like it is. And aren't we living in a moment where we need as much trust in public institutions as possible. So I feel like this is just a really unfortunate development and it's an unforced error. And I would add, politically it's not going to go, go away. It's going to get far worse in a, in a 5050 country on the margin moving 1, 2, 3%, that's that changes elections.
- [28:33]
B
All right. David Bonson is founder, managing partner and chief investment officer of the Bonson Group. David Wrights@dividendcafe.com and at World Opinions. David, thank you. We'll see you next week.
- [28:45]
F
Thanks so much, Nick.
- [28:46]
H
Sam,
- [29:14]
B
good morning. This is the world and everything in it. From listener supported World Radio, I'm Nick Iger.
- [29:19]
A
And I'm Mary Reichert. Up next on the World History Book, a doctor who shaped American independence. Americans are familiar with the most beloved characters in the story of the revolution like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. But one man played an equal role in the founding and managed to stay out of the spotlight. World's Emma Eicher has the story.
- [29:44]
H
Historian Joseph Leconte has spent a lot of time studying the American Revolution. And he says there's a forgotten founder he thinks every American should know.
- [29:54]
D
He's a chief surgeon in Washington's Continental Army. He signed the Declaration of Independence. He was a pioneer in the field of psychiatry. He was a strong advocate for women's education.
- [30:07]
H
This year, La Conte produced a documentary called Benjamin the Revolution's Indispensable Doctor. He says Rush played a pivotal role in American independence and the Revolutionary War.
- [30:19]
D
Dr. Benjamin Rush is the most important founding father that most Americans have Never heard of.
- [30:26]
H
There isn't a simple answer for why historians have largely left him out of the story. La Conti says it could be because many historians are uncomfortable with his apparent Christian faith.
- [30:37]
D
We don't know what to do with characters who are so obviously religious, who are so deeply committed to the Christian story, as Benjamin Rush was.
- [30:46]
H
Rush was born in 1746 in Pennsylvania. After earning his medical degree in 1768, he began his own practice in Philadelphia. That's where he would go on. To build strong friendships with prominent men, Rush joined social circles of statesmen and philosophers like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. He had lunch with George Washington and his wife. And beginning in 1773, Rush was part of regular coffee shop conversations about revolution. At a bookshop, he met a British expatriate who was sympathetic to the American cause.
- [31:20]
D
The guy turns out to be Thomas Paine.
- [31:22]
H
Rush encouraged Paine to write a pamphlet arguing for independence from Britain.
- [31:27]
D
Benjamin Rush becomes kind of his muse and gives it its famous title, common Sense.
- [31:32]
H
Rush served in the Continental army as surgeon general during the war, and he wrote recommendations for keeping soldiers healthy and free from disease.
- [31:41]
D
It's everything from keeping your tent clear, taking regular baths, cutting your hair short. All of that is pretty radical stuff for the 1770s. And George Washington will put into practice many of Rush's recommendations. We can only guess at how many men lived to fight another day thanks to Benjamin Rush.
- [32:01]
H
But Rush was incensed by the corruption he saw in army hospitals, like embezzlement and war profiteering, and that caused him to clash with his superiors. Then unsanitary conditions and supply shortages led him to write an outraged, unsigned letter to Governor Patrick Henry in Virginia. George Washington called it disloyalty, and Rush resigned from service. Afterwards, Rush channeled his expertise into a second kind of revolutionary, improving medicine and patient care. When he returned to Philadelphia, he witnessed a disturbing scene at the city hospital.
- [32:37]
D
He goes into the basement of the Philadelphia hospital, and he sees the mentally ill treated as just these insane, dangerous characters chained in the basement. And it stirs this kind of righteous indignation.
- [32:50]
H
Rush wrote the first textbook for mental disease and published it in 1812. He pioneered theories about how mental illness developed and gave practical solutions. He advocated for exercise, good food, and clean environments as part of humane treatment. Rush was later celebrated as the father of American psychiatry.
- [33:10]
D
And Rush is really developing the idea that there can be these physical causes for mental illness. It's not just some product of sinful behavior, as many might have thought.
- [33:24]
H
He was also an abolitionist. He later became the president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, which helped free many slaves in the state. La Conti says Russia's greatest attributes were resilience and his ability to see the image of God in everyone.
- [33:41]
D
He's not a compassionate visionary, sacrificial doctor, physician, patriot, in spite of his Christian faith, but because of his Christian faith.
- [33:51]
H
Although Rush's story is less well known, La Conti points out the lesson there.
- [33:56]
D
He is genuinely not seeking glory and acclaim for himself. He's not worried about his legacy. He's concerned about living for the audience of one, meaning his Lord.
- [34:08]
H
Rush spent the rest of his life in and out of politics. Eventually, he gained recognition both in America and abroad for his written contributions to the medical field. He died in 1813 after contracting a fever, leaving behind his wife, children, and a quiet but enduring legacy. That's this week's world history book. I'm Emma Eicher.
- [34:46]
A
Tomorrow, the theological divide among Methodists grows wider. The United Methodist Church cuts ties with a leading conservative seminary. We'll have a report and a bison farmer's take on how his wife preserves American history. That and more tomorrow. I'm Mary Reichardt.
- [35:02]
B
And I'm Nick Eicher. The world and everything in it comes to you from World Radio. World's mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates and inspires. The Bible says no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability. But with the temptation, he will also provide a way of escape that you may be able to endure it. Verse 13 of First Corinthians, chapter 10. Go now in grace and peace.