The World and Everything in It — November 2, 2020

MARY REICHARD, HOST: Good morning!

Oral argument analysis today on cases involving police officers and members of our armed forces.

NICK EICHER, HOST: Legal Docket is ahead today.

Also the Monday Moneybeat: you’ve heard about “V-shaped economic recovery,” David Bahnsen will dive into last week’s report on Gross Domestic Product.

Plus the WORLD History Book. Today, a look back at a handful of past presidential elections.

And prayers for our nation.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, November 2nd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Up next, Kent Covington with today’s news.

KENT COVINGTON, NEWS ANCHOR: Candidates make final campaign push » One final day of campaigning for candidates ahead of tomorrow’s election. 

TRUMP: We have the number one economy in the world right now by far, by far. And we’re not losing it on my watch, I can tell you that! 

President Trump stumping in suburban Detroit on Sunday. 

He’ll be back in Michigan today. He’ll also travel to Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, which may be the ultimate battleground state in this election. 

Trump narrowly carried The Keystone State in 2016 and some analysts believe it is a must-win for his reelection. 

With that in mind, his campaign rival Joe Biden will spend the final day of his campaign barnstorming the state. 

He also campaigned there on Sunday. 

BIDEN: Hello Philadelphia! It’s great to see everyone!  

The former vice president heard there holding an event in a church parking lot. 

An average of recent polls suggest Biden is leading Pennsylvania by about 4 points. 

Campaigns debate coronavirus measures » President Trump is campaigning on positive news for the economy. Numbers released Thursday showed record growth in the third quarter. 

But recent news regarding the COVID-19 pandemic is not positive. That’s given the Biden campaign more ammunition just ahead of Election Day. 

Former President Barack Obama hammered President Trump during a campaign stop for Biden in Michigan. 

OBAMA: If Trump were focused on COVID from the beginning, cases wouldn’t be reaching new record highs across the country.

Cases are rising in almost every state and hospitalizations are up in most. 

But Trump campaign adviser Jason Miller said a vaccine is on track to reach Americans in record time and that the administration has invested heavily in therapeutics. 

MILLER: COVID is no longer a death sentence. We have made such miraculous advancements. 

Deaths are up over the past two weeks, but only slightly. And the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients is down sharply from its peak back in April. 

Biden says the president has been reckless, desperately reopening the economy to boost his reelection hopes. 

But Trump says his opponent is ignoring unintended consequences of lockdowns—such as an increase in suicides and drug overdoses. 

The American Medical Association reported this month that more than 40 states have seen increases in opioid-related deaths amid growing concerns over mental illness and substance abuse.

British prime minister announces new lockdown » But in the UK, the prime minister has determined that another lockdown is needed.

JOHNSON: Unless we act, we could see deaths in this country running at several thousand a day, a peak of mortality alas bigger than the one we saw in April. 

Boris Johnson over the weekend announcing a new month-long lockdown for England. It’s set to take effect on Thursday assuming Parliament approves the measure. Lawmakers will vote on it Wednesday. 

Johnson said England is not going back to “the full scale lockdown of March and April.” He said the restrictions he’s outlined would not be quite as tough. 

But they would require bars and restaurants close down once again, except for takeout and nonessential shops would close. And…

JOHNSON: You must stay at home. You may only leave home for specific reasons, including for education, for work, let’s say if you cannot work from home. 

The rules would only apply to England. Other parts of the UK have already imposed similar restrictions. 

Sean Connery dies » Hollywood is mourning the loss of iconic big screen star Sean Connery. He died over the weekend at the age of 90. 

The Scottish actor was, of course, the man who made this line famous…

CLIP: Bond, James Bond. 

After leaving 007 behind, Connery went on to carve out an Oscar-winning career in other rugged roles. His film credits include The Hunt for Red October, Highlander, and First Knight. And he won Best Supporting Actor for portraying an Irish cop in The Untouchables

Connery’s wife and two sons said he “died peacefully in his sleep surrounded by family” at his home in the Bahamas.

I’m Kent Covington.

Straight ahead: a legal battle over qualified immunity.

Plus, your prayers for our nation.

This is The World and Everything in It.

NICK EICHER: It’s Monday, a little brighter morning now that we’ve fallen back an hour to standard time. Hope you had a restful weekend. It’s November the 2nd, 2020, and this is The World and Everything in It. Good morning to you, I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. 

Today, we continue our weekly coverage of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The justices have been on hiatus for a few weeks from arguments and that has given us a little time to catch up. 

The court sits again next week—this time with all 9 justices on hand, including of course the newest: Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

On Wednesday, the nine will hear an important religious-liberty case, Fulton v City of Philadelphia. The question is whether Catholic Charities can abide by its belief in biblical marriage and at the same time still participate in the city’s foster-care program. 

This is another foreseeable collision the court created with its Obergefell ruling in 2015 that redefined marriage to include same-sex unions.

EICHER: Now, before we get to oral arguments, I need just a moment for a word about support for our program. I don’t want to presume on your time, so I’ll keep this to 60 seconds on the button and you can skip ahead straight to the program content if this is not for you, OK? Carl, would you run a timer and I’ll keep to it:

Every day, you hear the reminder that The World and Everything in It is made possible by listeners like you. 

Because it’s true. 

Your support is what makes it happen every day.

Many thousands of people give generously and we’ll be asking you next month in our December giving drive to renew that support.

What I want to tell you today is that this month, we’re encouraging new listeners to make a gift of support. This was an idea that came from a friend of WORLD who said his family wants to lead by example with a gift that he hopes will challenge listeners who’ve never given before to give for the first time.

Maybe you’re a visionary like that. Maybe God has given you the means to incentivize new listeners to give. 

If I’ve described you, would you get in touch with me? 

We can discuss this offline, but I’d need to know how to do that, so please email me: [email protected]. Easy to remember, [email protected].

Kept my promise: 60 seconds. On now to our first case that began in the summer of 2014:

AUDIO: The morning started with gunfire in a northeast Albuquerque neighborhood after state police shot a woman…  began around 6 a.m. at an apartment complex near Harper Place near I-25 and San Mateo…

A police shooting in Albuquerque, New Mexico, six years ago. Two officers not in uniform attempted to serve an arrest warrant.

Two people were standing in front of the suspect’s apartment when the officers arrived. One person ran into the apartment. The other got into a nearby car and started the engine. 

The driver, Roxanne Torres, said she believed the officers walking toward her were carjackers. 

She was also under the influence of methamphetamine.

REICHARD: She drove the car forward, apparently not hearing that the officers were shouting instructions. When she didn’t follow those instructions, the officers drew weapons and shot 13 times, hitting Torres twice. 

But she kept driving. Then she crashed into another car, got out, then stole a car that had been left running. She drove 75 miles to a hospital. Police arrested Torres the next day, charged with fleeing from an officer, assaulting an officer, and stealing a car.

EICHER: Two years later, Torres sued the officers, accusing them of using excessive force. But she lost in the lower courts. 

Those courts found that the officers had qualified immunity. 

That’s a doctrine that sets a high legal bar to prove misconduct by police officers. After the death of George Floyd in police custody this past May, policymakers around the country began debating qualified immunity and asking whether the doctrine makes it more difficult to hold police officers accountable or whether changing the doctrine would have unintended consequences for communities beset by crime.

Under qualified immunity, you can sue a police officer for violating constitutional rights only if the right in question was “clearly established” when the incident happened. 

Under Fourth Amendment analysis in this case, the courts found the officers hadn’t actually “seized” Torres. The Fourth Amendment protects us against unreasonable search and seizure. Torres had no “clearly established” right under these facts, according to the lower courts.

REICHARD: And that’s the crux of the legal question now: If a misidentified suspect is shot and drives off evading arrest, is that a “seizure?” 

What exactly is a seizure? The courts are split on this matter. 

Torres’ lawyer, Kelsi Corkran, argued the lower courts got it all wrong:

CORKRAN: In drafting the Fourth Amendment, the Framers chose a term, “seizure of person,” that was widely understood at the time to include any touch intended to restrain, even when unsuccessful. That common law reflected the founding generation’s belief that the infliction of physical force on the body is itself a profound intrusion on personal liberty, regardless of whether it results in physical control.

Regardless of whether it results in physical control.” 

That’s key to her argument. 

So even if these officers didn’t get close enough to handcuff Torres and take her into custody, they still intruded on her personal liberty. 

Justice Samuel Alito cast about for the limits of that idea.

ALITO: If a military sniper shoots someone from a distance of 1,000 yards, would we say that the sniper had seized that person?

CORKRAN: Yes, because the sniper shot the bullet with the intent of applying physical force to the person in order to restrain them —

ALITO: In ordinary speech, would we say that the sniper seized that person?

After a little hesitation, Corkran said yes. 

Then Justice Alito tried again:

ALITO: I’ll give you another example. If a baseball pitcher intentionally beans the batter, would we say, “Wow, that pitcher just seized the batter?”

CORKRAN: I don’t know that we would use it in that context.

Justice Alito wasn’t buying her argument.

ALITO: I mean your argument is not consistent with the language of the Fourth Amendment and you want us to expand the concept of an arrest beyond where it stood at common law. Is that correct?

CORKRAN: No your honor. We’re asking the court to affirm the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment…

Lawyer for the police officers, Mark Standridge, argued a seizure does not mean at all what the other side claims. He cited a prior Supreme Court ruling that set out the hallmarks of an actual seizure by physical force:

STANDRIDGE: It’s a stoppage of movement. It’s the termination of freedom. It is a taking possession, it’s physical control. That is an easily administrable rule for the police officers working in the field, and it’s also easily understood by the common person. It comports with common sense and common understanding through 200 years of dictionary definitions and case law on the ordinary notion of “seizure.”

Standridge outlined the problem with the other side’s argument: at no time did the officers possess or have custody or control over Torres. Therefore, they cannot be held liable for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because they never seized her in the first place.

But Justice Stephen Breyer wasn’t so sure. He homed in on the other part of that phrase, “search and seizure.”

BREYER: Suppose that a policeman without a warrant wants to search a private person’s house, enters in the middle of the night. Before he can do anything, he doesn’t look for a single thing, no chance to look for or search for anything, a big dog drives him out. Is that a search?

STANDRIDGE: It — no, Your Honor, I — I submit that it is not, because the — the officer, though he has entered into the home, has not obtained information. And that’s — that’s the hallmark of a — of an invasive or an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

Had police actually stopped Torres when they shot her, she’d have an easier case to make for excessive force. 

But the law is gray in this instance. 

A 1991 decision of the Supreme Court said “seizure” means (a) laying on of hands or (b) the application of physical force to restrain movement

It seems that—(b) application of physical force—supports the position of Torres.

Yet, a 10th Circuit ruling held that if a suspect continues to flee after being shot, that’s different. In the view of the court, that negates a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force under the analysis of search and seizure. 

Now, of course, Supreme Court decisions supersede lower court decisions in cases like this. But still, the details aren’t entirely clear; in this case, the justices must decide whether these facts fit into those legal contours and articulate a rule going forward.

The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court to remand the case for better analysis below, although agreeing that Torres ought to be able to sue.  

A quick aside: this court declined to hear eight qualified-immunity challenges this year. The Torres case was the one the Supreme Court did take up, and it agreed to do so before the protests and rioting of this summer. Ultimately, the court’s decision may alter the doctrine of qualified immunity.

This last case involves three separate cases of rape by members of the armed forces. The court consolidated the cases to answer one central legal question: does a five-year statute of limitation within which to prosecute military rape apply to crimes committed in the 20 years between 1986 and 2006?

Conflicting laws and court rulings make this a gray area. I won’t get into the complicated legal history. The high court has to figure out which statute Congress has changed over the years applies.

But hear what the two sides are saying: the federal government takes the view that in the military, the crime of rape ought not have a time limit in which to prosecute. The attorney making the argument is Jeffrey Wall, Acting Solicitor General:

WALL: There is a different rule in the military. First, the harms are different. Military rape can destroy a platoon, it can undermine forces’ readiness, it can even damage foreign relations. So all rape is heinous, but we would say particularly so in the military.

On the other side, Stephen Vladeck, lawyer for the men convicted of rape years after the offense. 

He reviews the legal history.

VLADECK: Congress finally eliminated a statute of limitations for all rape offenses in 2006 so that the military may today try any such offense committed since then. But all three of the offenses at issue here predated that amendment, which has no language suggesting Congress intended it to apply retroactively.

In other words, Vladeck argues, it’s too late to prosecute his clients. 

But Justice Samuel Alito brought up a painful historical fact:

ALITO: Throughout history, there have unfortunately been many instances in which occupying armies have gone on rape sprees and have raped many, many women in the territory that they are — they are occupying. Suppose that were to happen again. Do you think it’s settled under our case law that the death penalty could not be imposed on members of the military who engaged in that sort of practice?

A brief back and forth, and then:

ALITO: You think what’s that Congress intended?

VLADECK: Well, if — if I might, Justice Alito, I — I think it’s worth pointing to two —

ALITO: That’s hard to imagine that the American military doing the sort of things that were done, for example, in the former Yugoslavia and many other examples that could be cited through history. But do you think that Congress had that in mind, that we are taking the death penalty off the table for offenses like that?

Vladeck answered that different provisions in military law allow for prosecutions of war crimes. But prosecutors are not accusing his clients of that.

Attorney Wall is arguing for the government wanting to prosecute these rapes. He provided some perspective:

WALL: The military very rarely pursues the death penalty. The last time the military executed someone was 1961 for the rape of a civilian child in occupied Austria in the wake of World War II.

If the court sides with the government, then prosecutors can pursue rape allegations that are now decades old. 

If the court sides with the men, then as Wall said in his closing argument, three convicted rapists inside the military will go free.

Decisions in both of these cases are expected by the end of June. 

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.

MARY REICHARD: Coming up next on The World and Everything in It: The Monday Moneybeat.

PENCE: With today’s new GDP numbers, the American economy grew by more than 33 percent in the third quarter, shattering any previous American record. The great American comeback is on.

NICK EICHER: Let’s talk about that with financial analyst and advisor David Bahnsen. Good morning.

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning. Good to be with you, Nick.

EICHER: David, this is a number we’ve been eager to see—Gross Domestic Product—and to paraphrase the vice president coming off a record shattering drop in GDP in April, May, and June of this year to see a record shattering rise for July, August, and September. 

By my count, that’s about two-thirds of the way back. What’s good about this GDP report and what’s bad about it?

BAHNSEN: Well, two-thirds of the way back is a lot better than only half of the way back. So it’s all kind of relative. I mean, I think that there has been opportunity for a sort of math lesson for a lot of people. And I don’t mean that sarcastically. I think there is kind of an intuitive thing that can be off. If you hear we were down 31 percent one quarter and up 33 the next, there are a lot of people that might assume they were up two when, of course, in reality you’re going up 33 from a lower number and so you’re still down. 

If you go back, Nick, to where GDP was at the end of the fourth quarter of 2019, we still have three and a half percent to go. So, no matter how you look at it, there’s still some work to do. 

But what this does is the same thing in reverse of what the Q2 number did, is it shows just how preposterous it is to try to evaluate the economy based on a clearly, self-evidently transitory experience and moment. So, there was an artificial drop in Q2 from the lockdown and there was an artificial bounceback and all of those things are in the record books, they matter, they’re there, but really what matters going forward is what it’s going to take to make up the rest of that wood that has to be chopped.

EICHER: It’s really interesting when you plot it on a graph and you look at it. That’s where you see that—and I think a lot of people hear economists say, well, it may or may not be a v-shaped recovery—and that’s a classic kind of v-shape kind of recovery when you look at that kind of a drop and that kind of a rise. And just like we did last week, I can say, you know, you were talking about this 6, 7, 8 months ago.

BAHNSEN: Yes, and if you see where the recovery came from and where it’s being held back, it does reinforce the v-shape narrative for now and I suspect that some of the data going forward will reinforce that kind of Nike symbol that a lot of people talked about or the square root recovery might be a better way to look at it—where now things incline at a lower rate of growth. 

The consumption numbers was through the roof and I’ve said this on our interviews together so many times, I don’t understand anyone being surprised by the American people’s willingness and ability and desire to spend money. So consumption’s doing great. 

The government expenditures are down a little bit. And then the import-export, the trade number ate away at GDP growth. Business investment looked pretty good but it needs to look better. We want to see sustainable cap-ex and so all things considered, the GDP number of last week really reinforced my belief about the economy. Things are on their way back and we have work to do.

EICHER: Here’s a good headline: “U.S. Jobless Claims Fall to Lowest Level Since Start of Coronavirus Pandemic.” I’m reading from the Wall Street Journal. Good for the psychology, feels like we’re making good progress. But let’s dig in a bit: continuing claims dropped into the 7 million range—again from a peak of 25 million—but edging closer to what’d be much more normal, just below 2 million. So, real progress here?

BAHNSEN: Oh, absolutely. And I can’t even imagine where we would be right now without some of the states continuing to do somewhat irrational levels of lockdown. And I do understand—there’s some people that say, well, what do you mean? If we see these new coronavirus cases coming, shouldn’t they be doing more lockdowns? But of course I disagree with that. 

There will be contraction, there will be economic difficulty, as long as there’s COVID out there, from people freely choosing to not go to as many restaurants and restaurants having to hold their capacity at a lower level and things of that nature. 

But restaurants in cities that have a one percent positivity rate only being allowed to open at 25 percent instead of 50, let’s say, that’s a meaningful number. So, I believe that what we have are things going in the right direction and yet we have the capability for them to go even more. And that, right now, is more in the hands of the states and localities than anything else.

EICHER: David Bahnsen, financial analyst and advisor, always great to talk with you. We’ll catch you next week.

BAHNSEN: Yes, Nick. Thanks so much.

NICK EICHER: Today is Monday, November 2nd. Thank you for turning to WORLD Radio to help start your day. 

Good morning. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard. Coming next on The World and Everything in It: The WORLD History Book.

Today, a series of notable presidential anniversaries.

EICHER: Ah yes, timely indeed. Tomorrow marks the 59th U.S. presidential election, and today WORLD senior correspondent Katie Gaultney takes a look at some significant moments in election history.

KATIE GAULTNEY, CORRESPONDENT. U.S. Election Day may be in our future, but as the expression goes, while life must be lived forward, we understand it by looking backward. 

At this point, only the Lord knows who will occupy the White House after Inauguration Day, but 220 years ago this week, on Nov. 1, 1800, John Adams was the first to move in. It marked an important milestone as the nation’s capital shifted from Philadelphia to Washington, D.C. 

But the executive mansion wasn’t the showpiece it is today. The rooms were cold, damp, and unfinished. After spending one night in his new home, Adams wrote a letter to his wife Abigail offering a benediction over the home. That blessing is uttered here by actor Paul Giamatti in the HBO miniseries, “John Adams.” 

CLIP: I pray heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof.

In 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered that portion of Adams’ letter carved on the mantel of the state dining room, where it remains today.  

While Adams was writing his letters, he likely couldn’t have imagined a technology like radio. One hundred years ago today, KDKA of Pittsburgh started broadcasting as the first commercial radio station in the United States. Its very first broadcast? The result of the 1920 U.S. presidential election, recreated here for a 1944 special broadcast. 

KDKA: This is KDKA in East Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We shall now broadcast the election returns. We’d appreciate it if anyone hearing this broadcast would communicate with us, as we are very interested to know how far the broadcast is reaching, and how it is being received. 

In the 1920 election, Republican Senator Warren G. Harding of Ohio bested Ohio Democratic Governor James M. Cox.

MUSIC: [1939 performance of “God Bless America”]

With that, let’s begin a bit of a “lightning round” of presidential victories. 

NEWSREEL: Franklin Delano Roosevelt is again elected President of America over his Republican opponent Wendell Willkie… 

On Nov. 5, 1940, FDR became the first—and only—U.S. President elected to a third term. He went on to win a fourth term in 1944, but died of a cerebral hemorrhage only five months after that election. His vice president, Harry Truman, succeeded him. Today, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to two terms, or one if they have already served more than two years in the nation’s highest office. 

Jumping ahead to the election of 1980… 

NBC: Ronald Wilson Reagan of California, a sports announcer, film actor, Governor of California is our projected winner… 

Reagan was first elected president 40 years ago this Wednesday, ushering in an era of economic conservatism. The “Great Communicator” was well-liked for his policies that lowered tax rates and inflation—and for his optimism and sense of humor. 

CBS: As someone has once said, as long as there are final exams, there will be prayer in schools.

While Reagan’s victory over incumbent Jimmy Carter was clear, not all presidential elections in recent memory have been. 

NEWSREEL: A big call to make, CNN announces that we call Florida in the Al Gore column/ Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder/ Florida goes to Mr. Bush…

This Saturday, November 7th, marks 20 years since the controversial election that spurred the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore

BUSH: Our country has been through a long and trying period, with the outcome of the presidential election not finalized for longer than any of us could have ever imagined…

Of course, Bush eventually claimed victory, with the Supreme Court ending a contested Florida vote recount. People debate that decision even today. 

With many believing that tomorrow’s presidential election will shape up to be a close one, let’s close with another timely adage: History never repeats itself, but it often rhymes. 

MUSIC: [“God Bless America”]

That’s this week’s History Book. I’m Katie Gaultney.

MARY REICHARD: Today is Monday, November 2nd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Next up, prayers for our nation.

Last week, we asked you to send us recordings of yourselves reading Scripture and praying for our country during this important time. 

Our goal is to point all of our thoughts to God who is sovereign. He governs all things, even elections in a land that seems increasingly difficult to govern.

REICHARD: Here now are listeners Ava, Penny, and Nancy Ramsey reading Psalm 23.

Then, you’ll hear Duncan Holmes reading from the Common Book of Prayer.

Jared Musgrove follows, with a reading of Psalm 24.

And Jemima Deutsch rounding it all out with a prayer.

JEMIMA DEUTSCH: The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters.
He restores my soul.
He leads me in paths of righteousness
for his name’s sake.

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies;
you anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me
all the days of my life,
and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD forever.


DUNCAN HOLMES: Almighty God, to whom we must account for all our power and privileges, guide the people of the United States, and of our community and state, in the election of officials and representatives that by faithful administration and wise laws, the rights of all may be protected and our nation be enabled to fulfill your purposes through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.

JARED MUSGROVE: The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof,
the world and those who dwell therein,
for he has founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the rivers.

Who shall ascend the hill of the LORD?
And who shall stand in his holy place?
He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to what is false
and does not swear deceitfully.
He will receive blessing from the LORD
and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Such is the generation of those who seek him,
who seek the face of the God of Jacob.

Lift up your heads, O gates!
And be lifted up, O ancient doors,
that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
The LORD, strong and mighty,
the LORD, mighty in battle!
Lift up your heads, O gates!
And lift them up, O ancient doors,
that the King of glory may come in.
Who is this King of glory?
The LORD of hosts,
he is the King of glory!

JEMIMA DEUTSCH: Thank you, Lord, for our country and the unique freedoms and relative ease we’ve enjoyed thus far. Thank you that you are sovereign, merciful, and longsuffering. We do not deserve any of the goodness we have experienced from your hand. Lord, as we pray for our nation at this most critical of crossroads, we know that no one and nothing can thwart your plans and purposes. We know that kingdoms rise and fall, leaders come and go, according to your grand design and power. So we ask that you will move and intervene on behalf of your people. And bring about the circumstances that will allow us to lead a life that is quiet and dignified, so that we may serve you with the strength you supply. Lord, as we look to the future, whether it be comfort or trouble, grant us courage to be your witnesses, and give us perseverance to be faithful until the end. In Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.

NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: We could be in for a long night or not. We’ll give you a rundown of possible scenarios as the polls close.

And, we’ll take you around the world to find out how people in other countries are thinking about the election here in the United States.

That and more tomorrow. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Thanks for listening, and go now in grace and peace.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Like this story?

To hear a lot more like it, subscribe to The World and Everything in It via iTunes, Overcast, Stitcher, or Pocket Casts.







Pocket Casts

(Requires a fee)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.