NICK EICHER, HOST: Good morning!
The third presidential impeachment trial in U.S. history is under way. And lawmakers began the battle with a clash over the rules.
AUDIO: Twenty-one years ago, 100 senators agreed unanimously that this roadmap was the right way to begin the trial.
MEGAN BASHAM, HOST: That’s ahead on Washington Wednesday.
Also WORLD Tour with Africa correspondent Onize Ohikere.
Plus, a moving story about a hospital chaplain and a baby who survived an abortion.
LORA: She turned around and left and I was by myself. I rocked him and I sang to him like I would want his mother to do…
And WORLD founder Joel Belz on the blessings of God’s renewable resources.
EICHER: It’s Wednesday, January 22nd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.
BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. Good morning!
EICHER: Now news. Here’s Kent Covington.
KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Democrats, Republicans clash over rules on day one of Senate impeachment trial » Plenty of fireworks in the Senate chamber on day one of the Senate’s impeachment trial. Democrats and Republicans clashed over the rules that will govern the trial. That debate spilled over into this morning.
House impeachment manager Adam Schiff stepped back to the lectern just after 1 a.m.
AUDIO: Mr. Schiff you have 57 minutes. Don’t worry, I won’t use it.
Schiff argued repeatedly that the Republican plan to get straight to opening arguments and vote later on calling new witnesses in the trial is a ruse.
SCHIFF: A vote to delay is a vote to deny. Let’s make no mistake about that.
Democrats pushed multiple amendments to try and force new witnesses at the start of the trial. But they were unable to peel away GOP votes and each time, the Republican majority voted to shoot it down.
ROBERTS: The yeas are 53, and the nays are 47. The amendment is tabled.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts heard there with the tally.
Just before 2 a.m. Eastern Time, the Senate voted, once again down party lines, to adopt ground rules for trial. Those rules will delay a decision on witnesses until later in the process.
Trump touts economy, trade at World Economic Forum » Meantime, President Trump watched day one of the Senate proceedings unfold from across the Atlantic.
The president spoke in Switzerland at the World Economic Forum. The two-day meeting brings together roughly 3,000 global CEOs and politicians at a ski resort in Davos.
Trump touted a booming U.S. economy—as well as improvements to trade policy.
TRUMP: Perhaps the most transformative change of all is on trade reform where we’re addressing chronic problems that have been ignored, tolerated, or enabled for decades.
But he also celebrated progress toward winding down the trade war with China and a new trade truce with France.
Many participants at the gathering discussed strategies to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate accord. But the president seemingly took a jab at climate alarmism.
TRUMP: This is a time of tremendous for tremendous hope, and joy, and optimism, and action. But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom.
But the president did announce that the United States will join an initiative to plant 1 trillion trees worldwide.
First U.S. case of new coronavirus confirmed » Health officials have confirmed the first case of the new coronavirus in the United States.
A U.S. resident was diagnosed after returning to the Seattle area last week after traveling to central China, where the outbreak began.
Dr. Chris Bitters is with Washington’s Snohomish County Health District. He said the man was transported to a hospital just outside of Seattle.
BITTERS: That facility is following our jointly developed infectious disease protocols to ensure prevention of transmission in the facility.
Nancy Messonnier with the Centers for Disease Control noted that health officials began screening passengers at several airports on Friday.
MESSONNIER: At San Francisco airport, New York JFK, and Los Angeles airport. So far, CDC staff have screened over 1,200 passengers.
She said they haven’t discovered any signs of the illness yet among those passengers. The CDC will expand the screenings to Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport later this week.
Six people have died from the new coronavirus. The cold-like sickness has sparked fears of an epidemic similar to the SARS outbreak that killed nearly 800 people in 2002 and 2003.
Boeing expects longer delay for FAA approval of grounded jets » Boeing said Tuesday that it doesn’t expect its grounded Max jets to fly again anytime soon. WORLD Radio’s Anna Johansen reports.
ANNA JOHANSEN, REPORTER: The company said federal regulators are not likely approve its changes to the Max jet flight systems until the summer. That timetable is several months longer than the company was saying just a few weeks ago.
That sent Boeing shares tumbling on Wall Street—down nearly 6 percent at one point, to a 52-week low. They ended the day down 3.4 percent.
The latest timetable is based on work remaining to be done before the Federal Aviation Administration will allow the Max back in the sky.
The FAA said in a statement that it is conducting “a thorough, deliberate process” to make sure the changes to the Max meet certification standards. The agency says it has no timetable for completing its review.
Reporting for WORLD Radio, I’m Anna Johansen.
COVINGTON: Two more Puerto Rico officials fired after warehouse break-in » Puerto Rican Governor Wanda Vázquez this week fired two more officials amid growing outrage over the discovery of a warehouse filled with emergency supplies sent after Hurricane Maria.
Vázquez fired the heads of the island’s housing and family departments as well as the director of Puerto Rico’s emergency management agency.
A Facebook video surfaced over the weekend showing a group of angry people breaking into the massive warehouse where they discovered tons of undistributed relief supplies.
The governor said she decided on the firings after she met with leaders of her administration and officials were unable to provide information she requested about other collection and distribution centers.
I’m Kent Covington. Straight ahead: the Senate debates impeachment.
Plus, Joel Belz reconsiders God’s most renewable energy source.
This is The World and Everything in It.
MEGAN BASHAM: It’s Tuesday, the 22nd of January, 2020. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Megan Basham.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. First up on The World and Everything in It: Washington Wednesday.
Well, the impeachment trial against President Trump is under way in the U.S. Senate. And while the ultimate result is probably not in doubt, the process itself may hold a few surprises in the days ahead.
For starters, how about this one: In order to get this done, the Senate’s going to have to give up its classic three-and-a-half-day work weeks. Instead they’ll trade those in for six-day work weeks. How about that?
BASHAM: Welcome to our world!
EICHER: I know, right? We’re talking Monday through Saturday. The Senate will remain in session and take only Sundays off.
BASHAM: Now, the big order of business yesterday was to vote on the rules. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled a plan that would move things along at a pretty fast pace. It’s got four parts.
First, Democrats will make their arguments. They have 24 hours of time, spread out over as many as three days.
Second, President Trump’s team will bring their arguments starting Friday or Saturday. Same deal: up to 24 hours of time, spread over two or three days.
Third, senators will ask questions. They’ll write them out and pass them to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is overseeing the trial. That can take up to 16 hours of floor time, and that will probably eat up another couple of days.
And fourth, the Senate will hold four hours of debate before voting on whether to admit new evidence and witnesses. If the answer is no—as McConnell wants—then a vote to convict or acquit could come around the middle of next week.
EICHER: Now, for weeks Democrats have been calling for more witnesses and evidence, so they were none too happy with McConnell’s rules resolution.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the plan a “national disgrace” that is tantamount to a “cover-up.”
For the Republicans’ part, they say if the House case is so strong, what’s the point of new evidence and witnesses? Yesterday, McConnell insisted Republicans are doing nothing unusual: they’re simply sticking to the same approach the Senate unanimously approved two decades ago.
McCONNELL: This basic, four-part structure aligns with the first steps of the Clinton impeachment trial in 1999. Twenty-one years ago, 100 senators agreed unanimously that this roadmap was the right way to begin the trial.
Fair is fair. The process was good enough for President Clinton, and basic fairness dictates it ought to be good enough for this president as well.
BASHAM: OK, here are the names to know on each side. For Democrats—the prosecution—you have Congressman Adam Schiff leading the impeachment managers. He’s chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and that’s where the impeachment probe originated.
He’s joined by six other House Democrats: Jerrold Nadler, Hakeem Jeffries, Zoe Lofgren, Val Demings, Sylvia Garcia, and Jason Crow.
On the Republican side, the president’s defense team is led by White House counsel Pat Cillopone. Next is Jay Sekulow, one of his personal lawyers.
He also has Ken Starr and Robert Ray. Both of them were involved in the Clinton investigation and impeachment.
Rounding out Trump’s team is former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz and three other lawyers.
EICHER: The White House also has a group of eight House lawmakers will serve on the president’s defense team. They comprise some of his most staunch defenders, including Doug Collins of Georgia and Jim Jordan of Ohio.
Those eight House members are not likely to be as prominent as the legal team on the Senate floor. But, it’s safe to assume they will be making a lot of media appearances in the coming days.
BASHAM: And not to be left out, the senators are divided into teams, too! There are 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents. But that’s not actually what I mean. Among those 100 senators you have a faction of liberal Democrats and a few who are more moderate.
Republicans have their own moderates, of course—led by Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitt Romney. They’ll be worth watching, especially on the question of witnesses next week.
The GOP also has a group of outspoken Trump supporters—think Lindsey Graham—as well as institutionalists, think Mitch McConnell.
EICHER: Well, with the stage set, let’s go to Henry Olsen for some analysis. He’s a senior fellow for the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a Washington Post columnist.
Henry, good morning to you.
OLSEN: Good morning!
EICHER: Yesterday we saw the first votes, first floor debate. What was your top takeaway?
OLSEN: This is going to be every bit as ugly and as partisan as I expected it to be.
EICHER: OK. Let’s move to this issue of witnesses. Why was it so important to Democrats to vote on new witnesses at the start of the trial, rather than waiting. And then—conversely—for the Republicans, I understand the procedural arguments against witnesses, but why not go with witnesses and get Hunter Biden in the dock?
Lay out the thinking for us and why it matters.
OLSEN: Well, none of this matters for the conduct of the trial because everyone knows what the vote is going to be. I mean, this president is not going to be removed from office. There are not going to be 20 Republican senators and three Democratic senators that represent states that Donald Trump carried who are going to remove him from office. So, what this is all about is shaping perceptions with regards to the two parties for the 2020 election. For the Democrats, the argument is the Republicans are cheaters. The Republicans are unfair, therefore you should not trust a Republican. And for Republicans, the argument is the House has back-to-back and it’s time for us to actually begin to put some brakes on this runaway train, so let’s actually hear the arguments and then vote on a case-by-case basis.
I will not be surprised if we don’t get witnesses on the plan that’s been proposed by a couple of Republicans, which is on a mutual reciprocity basis where each side gets a certain number of witnesses they can try to call. But at the outset, this is all about partisan gamesmanship and has nothing to do with the conduct of Trump.
EICHER: I do wonder, though, because part of what I was trying to get at—why wouldn’t the Republicans want witnesses? Why wouldn’t they want to get Hunter Biden in there and just say, hey, that’s what this was about?
OLSEN: Well, because I think, again, just being completely political about it, I think there’s a substantial disagreement within the Republican conference whether or not calling Hunter Biden is good for them politically. If they thought it was unqualifiedly good for them politically, I think they would compete on that. The Democrats don’t want that because, again, they don’t know what Hunter Biden could or could not say under oath. So they don’t want to take the risk that it could embarrass or damage the person that could be their nominee. It’s all about gamesmanship.
EICHER: And we know that the vote on witnesses will only take a simple majority. Republicans don’t have a massive majority over there—53 seats. So if four of them break ranks, then, I mean, we’ve already heard that Senator Mitt Romeny wants to hear from John Bolton. Do you think there is a likelihood that something like that would happen?
OLSEN: I don’t think it will happen on the terms that the Democrats want, which is that they get to decide what the standards of relevance are, which will effectively handcuff the president’s lawyers representing the cases they want to represent. I think there will be witnesses and I think they will be along the lines that a number of Republicans have signalled, which is each side gets to decide for themselves what relevancy means and each side may subpoena witnesses that they believe are in their interest. Now, the Democrats, it’ll be interesting to see whether the Democrats’ motion proceeds in a week along the lines that they want and they make no concessions to the Republicans, whether or not they would then vote for a Republican counter-motion that would give them the chance to call witnesses as long as the president’s lawyers have the chance to define relevancy in their own terms. That is ultimately where we’re heading in eight days and it’s a great question to know how the Democrats will vote.
EICHER: Let’s talk about the nuts and bolts of politics. This comes very, very close to the Iowa caucuses. Do you think that the impeachment trial is going to have a material effect on the Democrats running for that nomination up there?
OLSEN: I think a lot of it depends on how the Democrats who are running choose to connect themselves. I argued in a piece for the Washington Post last week that what Democrats should be doing is turning this into a political triathlon, which is scheduling events and leaving as soon as they possibly can in order to attend late night events and make it into a reality show. We will see whether or not now that regionally in order to forestall that, Mitch McConnell has pushed through or proposed rules to require each side’s 24 hours could be offered over a period of two days, which would have meant basically marathon sessions that would keep the senators glued to their seats. Now the rules that they proposed give them three days. Well, that’s a big difference for a prospective candidate. It means that the Senate can be in session from 12 to 8 and then somebody can fly out and have an 11 o’clock vigil or they can be there at 6 o’clock and have a 6 o’clock breakfast meeting and fly back without going on two or three hours of sleep. Simply that one change opens up the possibility for the enterprising and physically fit candidates to be making daily runs out to Iowa.
EICHER: That’s interesting. Henry Olsen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. Henry, thanks for your analysis. We’ll check you again later after this moves along. Thank you.
OLSEN: Thank you very much.
NICK EICHER: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: WORLD Tour with Africa correspondent, Onize Ohikere.
ONIZE OHIKERE, REPORTER: Violent protests rock Lebanon—We start today in the Middle East.
AUDIO: [Lebanon protesters]
Police in Lebanon used rubber bullets and water cannons to disperse protesters over the weekend. Two nights of violence left the streets of Beirut littered with shattered glass and rocks. Hundreds of people were injured.
The protesters are angry over political gridlock and an economic crisis that keeps getting worse. About one-third of Lebanon’s people live in poverty. But the World Bank warns that number could climb to half as the country’s economy nears collapse.
The mostly peaceful protests began in mid October with demands for a new government. Prime Minister Saad Hariri and his cabinet resigned not long after the protests began. But the new leaders cannot agree on who should join the new government, leaving the country in political limbo.
World powers seek peace in Libya—Next to Africa.
World leaders met over the weekend to discuss solutions to end the long-running civil war in Libya. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres led the meeting of 11 nations.
GUTERRES: Today all participants committed to refrain from interferences of the armed conflict or internal affairs in Libya.
Meeting participants agreed to respect an arms embargo, stop military support for the warring parties, and push them toward a cease-fire agreement.
Libya has been divided since the 2011 ouster of dictator Moammar Gadhafi. The United Nations recognizes the government in Tripoli. But military commander Khalifa Hifter maintains control over a large swath of the country.
Egypt, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates back Hifter’s forces, while Turkey supports the government in Tripoli. Russia and Turkey brokered a truce between the rival leaders earlier this month. But it didn’t last.
Boko Haram executes pastor—Next to Nigeria.
Boko Haram has reportedly executed a pastor held captive since early January. Lawan Andimi was chairman of the Christian Association of Nigeria. In a video released by his captors earlier this month, Andimi urged supporters to pray for his release. But he also said he trusted the will of God over his life.
A local journalist reported Andimi’s death, but it remains unconfirmed.
AUDIO: [Jihadists attack]
Meanwhile, militants armed with machine guns and explosives attacked a UN aid facility in northeast Nigeria over the weekend. No UN workers died in the attack. But the militants made off with food, medicine, and other supplies.
From ash to bricks in the Philippines—And finally, we end today in the Philippines.
AUDIO: [Filipinos turn ash into bricks]
The Taal volcano continues to spew smoke and ash, leaving a big mess for local cities to clean up. But officials in Binan are trying to make the best of a bad situation.
AUDIO: [Sound of Binan brick plant]
Workers at a local brick factory are mixing the volcanic ash with plastic waste to make bricks for building projects. So far they’ve been able to produce about 5,000 bricks a day.
That’s this week’s World Tour. For WORLD Radio, I’m Onize Ohikere reporting from Abuja, Nigeria.
MEGAN BASHAM: Scientists in Guam are trying to answer an age-old question: How do you move a mountain?
Well, to be more specific, how do you move a man made underwater mountain?
Go back 50 years, and about a mile offshore. Scientists dropped 2,400 car tires into the Cocos Lagoon. They thought maybe the tires would form an artificial reef to help increase the fish population. But the fish didn’t take to it and by 1973, the government pulled the plug on the program.
So file this one under, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.” Of course, the scientific consensus now is quite different.
Basically, what they’re left with is a huge underwater pile of trash. And environmental officials are working to clean it all up to prevent more damage to the natural habitat. And they’ll need to figure out how to relocate the coral that has grown on the tires.
It’s not going to come cheap. Estimated cleanup cost: About a hundred bucks per tire or a quarter of a million dollars.
It’s The World and Everything in It.
MEGAN BASHAM: Today is Wednesday, January 22nd. You’re listening to WORLD Radio, and we’re really glad you are! Good morning. I’m Megan Basham.
NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. This next story deals with the subject of infanticide.
It is a heart-rending story, and it might be too disturbing for young listeners. So we want to give you a moment to reach for the pause button, and if you do, I also hope you’ll come back later, because the story is quite important.
It’s just that it might not be appropriate for all ages.
To set this up, let’s go back to a political event last year. It was an event for Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. Someone at the event brought up the subject of a bill in Congress called the “born alive infant protection” act.
Questioner: What about the babies that survive abortions? How come they can’t have health care?
Warren: Infanticide is illegal, everywhere in America.
But as we’re about to hear, Warren’s claim depends on how you define the term infanticide.
WORLD reporter Les Sillars has our story.
LES SILLARS, REPORTER: Do abortionists get away with infanticide? By any sensible definition, of course they do. In 1973 the Supreme Court created a constitutional right to kill infants inside the womb.
But what about infanticide outside the womb? Abortionists often use drugs to induce labor in the second or third-trimester, usually when there are “lethal fetal abnormalities.” The process usually kills the infant, but not always. Executing the baby at that point is, as pro-abortionists point out, already illegal. And often, if there are birth defects, medical care would not save them.
So the question, more precisely, is: Do abortionists withhold medical care from viable babies who have survived an abortion? Abortion supporters like North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper say no. He vetoed a state born alive protection bill last April.
COOPER: This legislation seeks to criminalize something that simply does not exist.
Maybe he shouldn’t be so sure.
LORA: I was beeped in the middle of the night …
On November 12, 1998, Lora Geer was a seminary student doing a chaplaincy residency at the University of North Carolina Medical Center at Chapel Hill. She rolled out of bed and hurried the couple of blocks to the hospital.
LORA: I assumed it would be something tragic, because it’s in the middle of the night, so …
She was surprised, arriving at the maternity ward, when a nurse took her to a utility closet.
LORA: And I walked in and there was a baby that was laying naked on the counter and I remember there was a sink there, there was lots of cleaning supplies and the baby was just laying there, by itself, naked …
A mortuary tag said his name was Brian. Severely premature babies usually have translucent skin and an undeveloped look.
LORA: But this baby … his skin was milky and he was um, sorry, he was beautiful …
Brian looked to her like a postcard baby, far beyond 20 and a half weeks’ gestation. Abortion was supposed to be illegal after that point in North Carolina. She picked him up.
LORA: Then one of the nurses … she said, if you put your fingers on his chest you can feel his heartbeat … and then she said, this baby’s survived an abortion and he, um, his mother, his parents, want him to be baptized.
Later she saw his chart. He’d been diagnosed with Down Syndrome, but he didn’t look like a Down baby to her.
LORA: She turned around and left and I was by myself … I rocked him and I sang to him like I would want his mother to do sniff … sorry … and I prayed for him … so I did, I went to the sink and I put water on his head … did some sort of like a little ceremony so I could say in honesty, I could fill out the baptismal paperwork and I could tell his parents I had done this thing.
She just wanted to grab the baby and run to the NIC-U across the hall. But what then? She felt helpless. Soon, she realized Brian had passed away.
LORA: So I put him on the counter and his arms and legs just splayed open and he just went limp, and that was one of the hardest things to be honest to turn around and to leave that child there.
She went to the nurses’ station and filled out a baptismal certificate. Then she went to the parents’ room. The mother was there, with her head down. Geer asked if she wanted to see Brian. The mother shook her head.
By then it was nearly morning.
LORA: I ran home and I was just, uh, beside myself …
She used to be furious with Brian’s mother. But she eventually realized that Brian is with the Lord, and his mother needs the gospel.
LORA: You really cannot deny the humanity of that child, so that takes us to places that are so raw and deep and dark that I think we naturally want forgiveness for those things …
Twenty years later, viable babies are still being left to die. But it’s hard to say how many. A recent CDC study found that between between 2003 and 2014, there were 143 cases of live births following an abortion. But the authors admitted the actual number may be higher.
A handful of states require some reporting on abortions that fail to kill the baby: three in Minnesota in the first half of 2018; 12 in Arizona in 2018; 11 in Florida in 2017.
It’s likely to continue happening, at least for a while. The 2002 “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” merely declares that abortion survivors are “persons.” Therefore abortionists can’t kill them by, say, snipping their spinal cords—like Kermit Gosnell. But it doesn’t require that abortionists provide medical care to abortion survivors. Last year Republican Senator Ben Sasse offered a bill to close that loophole, but it went nowhere.
So at the moment, abortionists can still just let survivors die. Legally. Even if the baby might, with medical care, survive.
For WORLD Radio, I’m Les Sillars.
NICK EICHER: Today is Wednesday, January 22nd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.
MEGAN BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham. Next up, WORLD founder Joel Belz marvels at God’s provision through natural resources, and man’s creativity in using them.
JOEL BELZ, COMMENTATOR: “I was wrong.” Some wise soul says those are the three hardest words for a human being to say.
Hard or not, I think it’s time for me to apply the confession to my long standing disdain for those who think we’ll soon be heating our homes and powering our cars with solar energy. Maybe in 100 years, I’ve stubbornly conceded. But no way in my lifetime.
Even in this column, in discussions about climate change and stewardship of resources, I’ve been way too condescending. I scoffed at the dreamers who imagined modern civilization might ever replace proven petroleum riches with something as distant and erratic as the sun.
But I think I was wrong. And it is more and more that distant and erratic sun that has been getting my attention.
Whether we see it or not, it is out there making its warmth available to every nation and culture on earth, every day of every year, for centuries or even millennia on end. You might think of the sun as an equal opportunity space heater. And so very much more. And experts tell us there’s no evidence at all that the sun is burning up! We’re using not even a tiny fraction of its capacity.
So common sense suggests that even some of us skeptics should swallow our pride and do whatever we can to hook up to God’s giant energy generator. The challenge is to get that energy from its source to its ultimate users.
Such a distribution system, if it is to succeed in the free market, needs to be both efficient and timely. So far, it is neither—though we are making progress, and it does show promise.
Just take a look across almost any gathering of new buildings—residential or commercial—and try to see how many solar collectors you can count. Folks aren’t installing such devices these days just for the fun of it, or for their décorative appeal. They actually work. About 40 years ago, I actually installed a primitive 3-foot-by-8-foot solar panel just outside our home’s laundry room. That happy improvement has saved our family budget at least $30 every single month—a total of almost $15,000 dollars. And we haven’t spent a single penny on operational or maintenance costs. Newer models capture the sun’s energy far more efficiently than mine does.
But what about the issue of timeliness? How can 6 billion people around the world ever learn to lean on a solar source that goes totally dark every single night? The humble solution just may be closer than you’ve imagined. Think batteries.
High-powered batteries—even in race cars, if you can believe it—are the coming thing. I used to think this was only the stuff of wild dreams. But I was wrong. Now I’m thankful God still infuses His marvelous creation with a spirit of invention and creativity.
For WORLD Radio, I’m Joel Belz.
NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: Medical debt is a serious financial problem for many Americans, and some churches are trying to help. We’ll tell you how.
And, an update on the case of the Christian owners of a bakery in Oregon. They’re fighting claims of discrimination.
That and more tomorrow.
I’m Nick Eicher.
MEGAN BASHAM: And I’m Megan Basham.
The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.
WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.
Jesus said, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples…”
Go now in grace and peace.