Financial Issues - 08.05.2025

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Welcome to Financial Issues, where we join reality with truth,
helping you make the most of your money by honoring
God with your investments. Now listen in as we give
you the practical tools and advice you need to become
a biblically responsible investor.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
Good morning everyone, Welcome back to Financial Issues. It is
great to be here with you. Seth y Dinski along
with Sam Case and the studio a team at Financial
Issues here with you this morning. Grateful for each of you,
TV audience, radio audience, social media, the chat. Welcome to
all of you. Hope you'll join the conversation live this morning.
We're here for the next hour and it's a delight
to be here today. Busy show as always. Art Ali,

(00:46):
my friend, the president and founder of the Timothy Plan,
is going to join me in just a little bit
to discuss a variety of topics, including the truth behind
the conversation surrounding the Sydney sweety fueled spike of American
eagle a spiked again to because of what Trump said. Yeah,
there's a lot to talk about with that one. It's
interesting stuff, to be sure. Also, we're going to talk

(01:09):
about the trajectory of young investors and just trying to
figure out, you know, what's the kind of what's the
temperature for this up and coming group. So I'm excited
for that conversation. Opr all as well. Art's coming on
with me in about ten minutes, so if you have
a question for him, you can always put it in
the chat. But I'm looking forward to that. Also, I'm
gonna sit down with Craig Rucker. Craig is the president

(01:30):
and co founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow
or sea fact. We're going to discuss the latest walkbacks
of an Obama era environmentalist law. The law itself was
pretty troubling, the walkbacks of it seemed to be the opposite.
I'm pretty excited for those. So Craig is going to
join me in the second half of the show. I'm
looking forward to that as well. Also your comments and

(01:50):
questions and an interesting question here, Sam, I think we're
gonna have fun with this one. Should lawmakers be allowed
to trade stocks? Many of them seem to be really
good at it, some of them almost too good. Chat.
What do you think should lawmakers be allowed to trade stocks?
Yes or no? We'll discuss that later on in the show.
I'm excited for it, folks, Just make sure to be
on the lookout for partner commentary should be out within

(02:11):
the next twenty four hours or so. This week in
the economy, bit of a down week. We'll get the
job numbers on Thursday, and then one Fed governor speaking
as well, but not a whole lot. Last week was
a super busy week. This week not so much. The
markets yesterday had a great day. They rallied with some
huge performances. By Monday's closing BELLA Dow was up one

(02:32):
point three percent, the S ANDB five hundred and up
one and a half, and then ASDAK pushing two percent positive,
so they more than gained back some of those losses
from the end of last week. Pre markets this morning
kind of mixed. We did get a really good earnings report,
which we'll look at later on in the show. But
that's what we're looking like here this morning, folks. Grateful
to be with you, all right, Sam, Let's get to
this question here about lawmakers trading stocks. So we have

(02:56):
seen this bill that's getting advanced from republic and Senator
Josh Holly. What can you tell us about this, Sam?

Speaker 3 (03:03):
That's right, Seth Last week a Senate panel voted to
advance that bill barring lawmakers, the president and vice president
from owning or trading individual stocks. As you said, that
efforts being led by Republican Senator Josh Holly. He says
it's being done in an effort to crack down on
insider trading. Here he is explaining the bill.

Speaker 4 (03:22):
I just want to point out that the historic nature
of this finally getting to a vote. There's been a
lot of talk about banning stock trading by members of Congress.
Never have we been able to get a vote. We're
going to get that vote today, and I just think
that this is such a simple proposition the American people.
When I go home and I say to folks they
asking me about stock trading, here's the thing that absolutely
stuns them. They can't believe that it's legal already. They
can't believe we can currently do it. Most members of

(03:44):
the public think it's already banned. And when I say, actually,
it's one hundred percent legal, they say why.

Speaker 2 (03:49):
And there's no good answer to that question.

Speaker 4 (03:51):
We should be here to focus on the public's business,
not private gain. We shouldn't be here day trading. We
shouldn't be here focusing on our stock portfolios. We should
be here doing what the American people sent us to do.
And that's what this bill is about.

Speaker 5 (04:04):
Now.

Speaker 3 (04:04):
Funny enough, seth The bill was originally called the Pelosi Act.
Is Nancy Pelosi is one of those people who has done,
let's say, suspiciously, well in the software.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
There's smoke, there's fire, and people have wondered how big
the fire is.

Speaker 3 (04:16):
Yet I know some people actually trade based on her portfolio.
She does that, well, they can they follow it and see,
let's see what Nancy's doing. I want to do that.
It's not called the Honest Act, and that appears to
be done just in a way to get bipartisan support.
Under the bill, lawmakers and their spouses too would be
immediately barred from buying stocks and then would have to
divest their stocks at the start of their next term

(04:38):
in office, so there's kind of a grandfather system there. Also,
this would mean that Donald Trump himself is exempt from
the divestment portion of this bill, since he can't be
re elected he's on his second term. By the way,
office holders could still buy mutual funds ETFs and treasury bonds.
They just can't buy or trade individual assets.

Speaker 2 (04:57):
And that's really interesting. I would say, at face value,
I think I'm for it. I think I am for this.
I think there's too much questions, there's too much smoke
surrounding this dramatic rise and net worth among many big
name politicians. Nancy Pelosi was kind of the archetype of this.
I'm not accusing her of anything, Sam, I'm just going
by the eye test here. It seems like there's something

(05:20):
fishy going on when it comes to, you know, our
elected officials having some form of access to these different
you know, publicly traded companies. You know, being an elected official, folks,
it comes with a lot of perks, comes with name recognition,
a nice pension. It should also come with some safeguards,
I think, especially considering the unfortunate fact Sam, that you know,

(05:41):
politics do impact the market, and so we'll get to
that in just a second here. But this is actually connected.

Speaker 6 (05:47):
You know.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
Of course, as you mentioned, this would impact the president
and Donald Trump being a businessman, this could really impact him.
What can you tell us about that?

Speaker 3 (05:54):
That's right, So initially he actually opposed this bill. He
seemed to be under the impression it would directly affect
him in some way. Like I said, he's already grandfathered in.
But he was also under the impression if it affected
all his assets, so he thought he'd have to sell
Mara a Lago or things along those lines. That's just
not the case. That's not in the bill. It doesn't

(06:15):
have to do with all assets. It's just dealing with
those individual stocks. It appears he was also concerned that
Democrats could use it as an attack against him, or
perhaps future Republicans as well. Trump has since spoken with Holly.
He now says after that conversation he's more open to
the idea, but at the same time says he would
like more details. Here's Trump talking about that.

Speaker 7 (06:35):
I don't know about it, but I like it conceptually.
And you know, Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information.
She made a fortune with her husband, and I think
that's disgraceful. So in that sense, i'd like it, but
i'd have to really see the I'd have you know,
I study these things very carefully, and this just happened,
so I'll take a look at it. But conceptually I

(06:58):
like it, And what I do think Nancy Pelosi should
be investigated because what she has the highest return of
anybody practically in the history of Wall Street save a few,
And how did that happen. It happened by she knows
exactly what's going to happen, what's going to be announced,
You buy stock, and then the stock goes up after

(07:19):
the announcements made.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
So Trump now is maybe on board. We'll have to
see about that. But a lot of Republicans are actually
pushing back against that bill. In fact, every Republican on
the committee that voted to advance the bill voted against
it besides Holly. So Holly had to join with all
the Democrats in order to get this thing through. So
that is raising at least some suspicion among Republicans. Concerns are,

(07:44):
like I said, it could be weaponized by Democrats in
the future. Even if it's not being used against Trump
because he's exempt, it could be used against future presidents
to create some sort of scandal. They're also concerned it
could deter businessmen, say the future Donald Trump, from wanting
to get into politics, because they basically have to sell
their businesses if it's publicly traded.

Speaker 2 (08:04):
Yeah, that's also interesting, Sam. You know, I think those
concerns are definitely valid, absolutely so there's one side of
me that thinks, yeah, that is definitely concerning. I would
love to be able to have people who know how
to manage money in the political system. In fact, I
think there's a big lack of that, and so having
people who have lucrative investment portfolios not be bard entering
politics just because they've done really well, I listen. I

(08:26):
think that's something to consider. I think at the same time,
the deep state side of me is wondering if these
Republicans are almost thinking, hey, i have a chance to
make a lot of money if I'm allowed to invest
in a similar way that Nancy Pelosi did, if he
catch my drift. So I'm picking up what you're laying
down and said, here's my controversial take on all of this.
I actually don't really care about insider trading. I don't

(08:48):
care if Nancy Pelosi makes a lot of money through
some let's say, dubious means because it doesn't really impact me.
But what does impact me is if politicians are making decisions,
making political decisions based on how it's going to impact
their portfolio. That's way more of a concern. So that's
why I can perhaps get behind this bill A bit
more absolutely, Sam, I think what you said there is

(09:09):
really interesting, because definitely we don't believe that insider trading
is a good thing. However, the more serious issue with
this is exactly what you said, Sam, is that I
do not want politicians, somehow their judgment now being impaired
on making decisions that are good for the country because
now they have to worry about how this decision might

(09:30):
impact their stock portfolio. That's a bad situation, that's a
conflict of interest. Then we should not have that. I
completely completely agree with you. We had a question from
the comments, Sam, you want to read that question really quickly.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
Here.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
I think we can sell to clarify. This wasn't our comments.
This was when I was reading online. But someone did
raise a really good point. People were saying, this is
a great idea, But then they said, and this is
a good point. Do you really want a government run
by people who don't have any stocks right in their portfolio?
This raises to mind. I think it was it was oh,
what was his name who ran for vice president with

(10:03):
Kamala Harris?

Speaker 2 (10:03):
I Tim Tim Walsall.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
That's right, I want to say Tim Walsh, but that's
not him.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Tim Walls. Yeah, he was. He was bragging by the
fact that he did not have any stocks. He didn't
know what a venture capitalist was. And I'm thinking that
might not be a good idea either, to have someone
who has no mistake in the economy running the government. Absolutely,
it's a tough situation, man. I My leaning with this
is I don't want any kind of outside influence upon
my elected officials. I want them to know money. I

(10:29):
want them to be good at investments, but those investments
might impact their political decisions. I would rather, if I
had to pick, I would rather my elected officials at
least just have a baseline understanding when it comes to
having a robust portfolio and keep the temptation away from
them running the country to benefit their portfolio rather than
benefit the American people. I think that's what I'd rather have.

(10:51):
It's an interesting question, Sam, and definitely a good conversation.
We have to pause here because we've got art Ally
coming up next on financial issues next. Welcome back everyone,
financial Issues. Happy to be here with you today, and

(11:12):
as always, I have a very special guest joining me,
my friend art Ali. Art is the founder and president
of the Timothy Plan. I always look forward to our conversations,
and we got an interesting one today.

Speaker 5 (11:22):
Art.

Speaker 2 (11:22):
Welcome back, brother, It's a pleasure to have you once again.

Speaker 5 (11:24):
Oh man, it's always fun to be on with you.

Speaker 2 (11:27):
Yep. Likewise, brother, all right, let's get into the culture
a little bit here. Art. So, the national consciousness over
the last probably week, week and a half or so,
as well as the Internet, has been a buzz due
to a spike in American Eagle stock after they hired
actress Sidney Sweeney to model for their latest denim line.
So the libs this was interesting art. The liberals were furious.

(11:49):
They were furious at the fact that an attractive white
woman was modeling and it wasn't some androgynist, asexual blob
doing it. On the other hand, conservatives were celebrating and
add at sadly, at its core was quite luid in
many ways. It was kind of a return to the
nineties erab beer in car commercials, where you're basically using
almost soft core pornography to sell a product. So Christians

(12:11):
need to think hard about this art. I gave a
rant last week about the dangers in both things. I'm
all for fighting wokeism, but I'm not sure I want
to do it by celebrating, you know, sexual luidness as well.
What do you make of this? Can? Can can Christians
celebrate a kick in the teeth of wocism, which I
think is what this was, while also condemning lustfully fueled advertising.

Speaker 5 (12:37):
Man, do I look like Donald Trump? I am not
gonna comment like he did. But it was a typical
add of typical people wearing typical clothes and they were jeans.
Was there some over sexuality? Ah? Maybe, I don't know,

(12:58):
But you know, this culture right now, we're studying Matthew
here in our devotion in the office, and it is
so reminiscent of how the Pharisees and the scribes attacked
anything Jesus did, and they looked like fools for doing it.

(13:21):
And I think the other side looking like fools on
this one. Like everything else they attack, they attack anything
that is the other side of the agenda they're trying
to promote. So I was not you know, I'm not
a prude. Is that a shock to you?

Speaker 2 (13:42):
No, I'm not.

Speaker 5 (13:44):
But I was not offended by that ad And how
all the brew haha came out? You know, now, as
they said, we said, well look, look it was. It
was an ad. It was a good ad. I guess
they're good jeans. I don't I don't own them, but
you know I wouldn't buy them or not buy them
because of that ad. So I don't know. That's not

(14:07):
a good answer. Maybe i'd answer around it a bit,
but I was not offended by the ad. Yeah, and
we take this culture very seriously here with.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
Timothy, absolutely, you know it kind of it certainly was
a picture of what seems to me to be the
continual death of wokeism, and I think that is something
that we absolutely can and should celebrate. How do you
see this now as we've seen you know, we're in
eight months into the Trump administration, we're seeing companies now

(14:36):
following suit where they're doing away with all of the
nonsense that they had the previous four years. Is this
a good thing? And do you see this being something
that is sustained?

Speaker 5 (14:48):
Well, I mean that's absolutely a good thing because all
this woke things, a DEI, the eesg, all of that
that these companies were embracing were contrary to what their
purpose for being in businesses in the first place from
a shareholder's perspective, And that's the run an efficient company,

(15:10):
hire the best people that can do the best job,
produce the best product. And when they started going on
this woke business and they were kind of pressured by
the huge gods Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Those funds are
so big and they own so many shares of all

(15:32):
these companies that they are able to exert their influence
on these companies. You one example that I've used, and
it would have driven Dan nuts, is Blackrock owns a
lot of Exxon. Blackrock was able to get three environmentalists,

(15:56):
green oriented people on the board of Exxon, which is
totally contrary to the business are in a producing good, clean.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
Energy, right.

Speaker 5 (16:07):
They just fell to that pressure. But thank god, the
penulum is swinging back the other way, and you know
they're they're running away from that now. But it's for
the better of every shareholder that they don't be embracing
those things. But then again, you know, you can kind
of feel good until you walk around the next corner
or something else that's in the face. I don't know

(16:30):
what else is coming, but I do know we are
beginning to win this culture war, and I couldn't be happier.
And you know what, because people are waking up.

Speaker 2 (16:43):
It's well said, brother, you know, And that really leads
to my final question on this topic. Here, it feels
to me like Christians are poised to really take this
thing and run with it. And you know, it's gaining steam.
If you get the Christian Church behind this thing, it's
going to steamroll like crazy. How would you encourage Christians
to lead the fight against Wokism?

Speaker 5 (17:03):
Well, you know, we've been guilty of a lot of things,
but no more than just we won. Let's sit back
now and put our feet up and enjoy it. Evil
never quits. You have to engage, you have to keep going.
You have to be involved in our mission here, Timothy

(17:24):
is you know, produce good quality investment products that don't
compromise our values. But the other side of what we're
doing is holding these pastor boot camps because Christians are
not being discipled on the biblical principles of engaging this culture,
because the pastors are not being trained on that. So

(17:49):
we've got about two thousand alumni. We've got three boot
camps coming up this year. Later this month as Williamsburg,
Virginia at a great Resort. Then we have Orlando, we
have Lake Mary coming up at the end of I
guess September October and then one in November. Believe it

(18:10):
or not, in Michigan. It has to come from the
pulpits and it has to come from the churches. And
we have not been battled ready because we have not
been properly discipled. We've just been focusing on just one
important a part of the church mission, and that's go

(18:32):
out and evangelize well. Christ. Requirement for us at the
end of the Book of Matthew is to make disciples,
and that has been a missing link. So I'm encouraged.
We cannot ever sit back on our blessed assurance on
the couch and and think we've won, because they never quit.

(18:53):
So bottom line, we can never quit and we won't
from this perspective.

Speaker 2 (18:59):
Amen, if a listener is, you know, listening to the show,
and they heard what you said about one of those
pastor boot camps, what do they need to do to
see if they could get their pastor to possibly attend
one of those Where do they need to go?

Speaker 5 (19:12):
It's Liberty Pastor or libertypastors dot com or libertypastornetwork dot
org or calm. It's all on there, all the speakers.
It's incredible. These three day events had nice resorts. Transforms pastors.

(19:33):
It equips them to do what they have failed to
be doing. And that's why we're on the mess. We're
in on the culture because the church is backed away
from their responsibility.

Speaker 2 (19:44):
Well said brother, I'll make sure to put that in
the chat there. Thank you guys for the work that
you do and getting those set up. All right, let's
move to a slightly different topic here now our favorite
bunch of geniuses known as the Federal Reserve. I wanted
to get your thoughts on this because you know drum
Palaceman in the news recently. I don't know if folks
know that, but he has been all right. If you
had Jerome pal cornered right now and could give him

(20:05):
any piece of advice based on his job performance thus far,
no matter how harsh it might.

Speaker 5 (20:10):
Be, what would you tell him resign? But on the
other hand, you know, I've been doing this for almost
fifty years now, I have never seen the Federal Reserve
ever to my memory, do the right thing. Yeah, you know,

(20:30):
it's a privately run cabal of self serving people that
do not work for our best interests necessarily. But they
wax eloquent and you know, just sound like they know
what the heck they're doing, but they just don't ever
do the right thing. So I don't think it's just
Jerome Paul, although it's your own Powell. He needs to

(20:51):
just get out of the way, and you know, let
this thing work. It can't be a political thing, just
the right thing. I wish they didn't exist, the free enterprise.
You know, everybody on Wall Street they sit there with
baited breath of what's the FED gonna do next? So

(21:12):
I don't care what the FED does. They don't do
the right thing anyway. But over time, the economy runs
this country, and I couldn't be more happy that's where
we're headed.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
That's awesome and art, how would you encourage you know,
us as investors, especially like you know, the regular average
joes who might have, you know, another job and they're
just trying to do well with the money that they've had.
They're not as financially minded, perhaps, how would you encourage
us as we try to parse what the FED says
understanding its inability to lead? Do we not even listen
to the Fed at all? Do we just focus on

(21:43):
our strategy what's the best thing for us to do
regarding the FED.

Speaker 5 (21:46):
Well, first, you're not investing in the FED. You're investing
in companies. Yeah, you own good companies that are well
run and are profitable. It doesn't matter what the daily
swings in the market price are because that company has
a long term future. And I couldn't be more pleased now.
I'm just my opinion. I like where this country is headed,

(22:10):
and I think long term, short term fluctuations have never
bothered me because they don't mean anything. They're just fear
and greed and emotions and all of that stuff. If
you're going to invest, have a long term view, invest
in quality companies that are well run, you're going to
do okay over time. And that kind of sounds like

(22:32):
something Dan used to say that his folks pick good companies.
Make sure you're invested well. Quit worrying about what happens
today or tomorrow or this week or this month. Long term,
if you don't have a long term view, do not invest,
because you're going to get whips on.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
So I appreciate what you guys do so much. Art
Timothy Plan is experts at that not only in the
long term investing, but I think most importantly, you guys
are sold out, committed and convicted to do biblically responsible investing,
and that's just such a blessing for us. Brother, we
appreciate so much. Coming to the end here, Art quickly.
How can the listeners of financial issues pray for the
work that Timothy Plan does.

Speaker 5 (23:13):
You know, it's so easy to deal with us, and
you said it yourself. Most people their eyes glaze over
when you use the term investor. Call us, go to
the website Timothyplan dot com. It's easy to know. Even
I can navigate that. But call one eight hundred tim Plan.
A human being will answer the telephone, not a computer.

(23:35):
Next with another human being that can actually explain all
your options on how things work to the point where
you'll understand it better.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
It's awesome.

Speaker 5 (23:46):
It's not that complicated. So we're here to sor and
that's what we art.

Speaker 2 (23:50):
We appreciate you so much, brothers, Folks, Art Ali, the
Timothy Plan, check them out.

Speaker 8 (23:53):
We'll be right back after this stay with us, folks,
welcome back. Hope you enjoyed that interview with Art Ali.
Always love having Art on the show.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Dear dear friend of mine, and just what a blessing
the Timothy Planned family is to us. All right, folks,
I have another special guest joining me today. Craig Rucker
is the president and co founder of ce Fact against
c Fact, that's the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. I'm
so excited to have him on. He's an author, speaker,
and he's an expert in free market economics. Craig, welcome

(24:31):
to the show. It's wonderful to have you today.

Speaker 6 (24:34):
Oh well, it's a real pleasure to be on. Thanks
for having me, Seth.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
Absolutely, So let's get right into this here, Craig. So,
there's an EPA proposal that may rescind an Obama era
in endangerment finding from two thousand and nine, which you know,
some historians have actually really kind of positive that this
may have paved the way for the ev mandates that
we've seen in the last fifteen years, other environmental initiatives.

(24:58):
What do you make of this in general? Tell our audien.
It's about what this proposal is and how it might
rescind that Obama era ruling.

Speaker 6 (25:06):
Well, this is I think it was put best by
the Wall Street Journal. They made the comment that its
Independence Day from climate imperialism, a lot of people may
be out there wondering, why in the world did Biden
say we have to get rid of the internal combustion
engine by the early twenty thirties and force us all
into very expensive evs. It's the endangerment finding. If they asked,

(25:29):
why are we have this mad rush for solar panels,
wind farms, offshore wind killing eagles, killing whales, it's the
endangerment finding. In fact, this finding has been used to
usher in all sorts of extreme things, from getting rid
of gas stoves do you name it all in the
name of battling climate change? Now, just to let you

(25:50):
know where it came from. Back in the early two thousands,
Al Gore and many of the radical environmentalists made a
proposal that they thought climate change was going to destroy
the planet. We know from hindsight many of their predictions
did not come true. I mean, I'm old enough to
remember back when they predicted New York City would be

(26:10):
under water by the year two thousand, or they said
that we would have to teach our children snow what
it even means to slid by the year twenty fourteen,
or back in two thousand and six out or this
famous movie Inconvenient Truth, said we'd have hurricanes every year
like Hurricane Katrina starting in two thousand and six, and
we went into the longest era of no hurricanes. But nevertheless, Obama,

(26:34):
once he took charge after George W. Bush put in
this endangerment finding in everything that became a whole of
government approach to try to transition our society from a
free market capitalist one one driven by government mandates. And
fortunately it took this long for science to catch up
and realize these people were snow in us or lack
of a better term for science, and they've been pushing

(26:58):
down this thing that's hurt our me and taking away
consumer choice. It's a glorious day.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
Sure is, Craig. You know it's funny you had mentioned
that thing about New York. I was only a little
boy at the time, but I do recall seeing on
social media some rather ironic images of people saying, you know,
climate change is so bad. Look at how the water
levels have risen in New York City. There's a picture
of Manhattan Island and the water level is exactly the
same as it was for the last fifty years. It
hasn't changed one inch. It seems It really is just

(27:27):
really honestly crazy stuff here. So it looks like the
Trump administration is going is trying to roll this back.
How are they doing this, Craig.

Speaker 6 (27:35):
Well, the first thing they're doing is they're going to
tackle the science, which I think is very important. Yeah,
pretty inesome, absolutely outstanding scientists with impeccable credentials, people like
Judith Curry from Georgia Tech. They have two NASA scientists,
John Christy and Roy Spencer. They have Steve Coonan who
was actually an Obama scientist. He was one of the

(27:56):
Obama's top scientists now saying this is bunk. They released
the report on the same day. They're doing this to
show that what they're doing is not going to it's
not going to dirty our air. Carbon dioxide, and what
they're going after with these greenhouse gases is not the
same as what the EPA has been charged with, which
is nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide OZO. These are real pollutants

(28:17):
that can cause human health. Carbon dioxide is the gas
that makes life on Earth possible. It's plant food. You
could breathe in much higher levels than we have today,
at about four hundred parts per million. You could breathe
in two thousand parts per million, it does nothing. And
the reason we know this is because astronauts actually lived
in an environment of two thousand parts per million. Some

(28:38):
marines operated that way. People are not harmed by CO
two like they are harmed by these other pollutants. So
they took on the science, released a great study at
the Department of Energy. They're allowing for comment on it,
and they're going to piece me overroll this back first
dealing with cars and airplanes, power plants, and it's very

(28:58):
well thought out. And I've got to get Lee's held
it at epa great credit for the style and thoroughness
with which he's going after this.

Speaker 2 (29:06):
And so then Craig and your estimation, what kind of
impact could this have for every day, you know, every
day citizens of this country. I can imagine. My hope
is that we would start to be seeing an impact
in our wallets. How might this impact us?

Speaker 6 (29:20):
Well? Will impact you?

Speaker 5 (29:21):
Have?

Speaker 6 (29:21):
First and foremost that we don't have to buy electric vehicles.
I mean I just bought one nies On I'm sorry,
Chevy Equinox, and you know I got it for just
under forty K. I'd have to spend almost eighty K
to get that car if they had mandated it right,
you know, by the year twenty thirty. So you're going
to see cutbacks and that you're going to see more
consumer choice. You don't have to get rid of your

(29:42):
gas stoves. There's all sorts of things that it should
save money on, I think, and it's what it's not
going to do. And I think this is the most
important thing, because you're going to hear a lot of
scary talk from the environmental community that's you know, the
outgoores and those types of people. They're going to say
you're cutting back on clean air and clean out. You're
not there or not. We have cleaner air today than

(30:03):
we've ever had, and all the major pollutants have gone
down eighty percent since the nineteen seventies and they're continuing
to plummet. So what you're not going to see is
dirty You are just more consumer choice and less government regulation.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
And Craig, this is somewhat of a you know, perhaps
regional specific question, but I know it's something I've dealt
with and I'm sure we have listeners who have dealt
with this as well. Every time I have to get
my truck inspected. I have to do that goofy emissions
test along with it. I know certain states don't do
that as much, but in the state that I'm in,
they do. Could we potentially be seeing a walk back
of even those things as well? I know it's a

(30:37):
small thing, but every time I get it inspected, it's
like I got to have the admissions test again. What
are your thoughts on that?

Speaker 6 (30:43):
Well, No, I don't think it'll impact that, you know, unfortunately,
I wish that they it could, but those types of
missions are actually ones that regulate the ones that EPA
is long regulated since the original Clean Air Act of
nineteen seventy carbon dioxide. What it did save you is
they probably would have started regulating near emissions of carbon
dioxide and that would have been much more expensive. So

(31:06):
at the moment, you know, you're still going to have
to put up the.

Speaker 2 (31:09):
Fair enough, fair enough. Well, Craig, that's really really good news.
What else is the Trump team doing in general to
kind of right these wrongs from the environmental silliness from
the former Democratic minix, from the former Democrat admins. That
really kind of gets you and your team excited. I'm
sure this isn't the only thing.

Speaker 6 (31:28):
Oh yeah, No, there's been an absolute war on farmers
and ranchers. A lot of government land has been put
aside now and brought up even by China. They're not
allowing that anymore. They're not going to allow some of
these multi billionaires to chew up farmland and just put
it into conservation easements and things of that sort. A
lot of these very dangerous of these pipelines that they're

(31:50):
putting in for carbon sequestration, this is designed to battle
CO two. Those are not going forward as a as
they were before, and a lot of them are being back.
So I'm seeing on that we're out of think Paris
Accord is another biggie. This would have locked us into
an international treaty that allows China and India to continue

(32:12):
to belch out CO two, and all of our heavy
industries moved to China and other places like in India
around the world, and we'd lose American jobs from that.
They're rolling that back too, So I think you're going
to see good things from the automakers. You're going to
see good things from American domestic energy production that will
see prices go down at the gas pump. So I

(32:34):
think we're going to see a renaissance in America based
on some of these environmental and energy policies that are
long time coming for those of us in the free
market environmental field. But it's a joint stay.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
Yeah, absolutely, Craig. Well, you know it's been your first
time on the show and I've greatly appreciated this conversation.
I want to give you the chance as well to
tell our audience about See Fact and the work that
you do there, specifically your role as you guys promote
free market economics. What do you guys do.

Speaker 6 (33:01):
Yes, we are an environmental group. We actually share like
your audience. We're kind of based on traditional Western values,
Judaeo Christian values. We believe that the environment is something
that we've been trusted to steward, but we don't think
it should be worshiped, and we have free market beliefs.
We're comprised mostly of a conservative slash libertarian mindset and

(33:22):
we've been around since nineteen eighty five. We have a
board of academic and scientific advisors that guide our policies
and we work on the whole gamut of environmental issues.
But we do not agree with greenpeas al Gore Greta
Thunberg AOC and others who believe that the environment should
always be given preference over human needs and human.

Speaker 5 (33:43):
Aims.

Speaker 6 (33:44):
We are part of God's design in the entire creation,
and we would like to be able to steward it
as it properly has been given in Genesis one twenty
eight where we were given dominion over the fish in
the air and the birds, but we rule over them,
don't rule over us.

Speaker 2 (34:01):
So yeah, and then but we.

Speaker 6 (34:03):
Do have to steward it. So that's kind of our viewpoint,
and we'd encourage people to get find out more by
visiting us at c fact dot org. That's c f
act dot org. Again, that's c f act dot.

Speaker 2 (34:18):
Org, c fact dot org. Craig, I really appreciate you
coming on, brother, and you hit the nail on the
head throughout this whole interview, especially at that you know,
ending point there. This really is a stewardship issue, and
you know, we want to be good stewards of everything
that God has given to us. On this show, it's
often about money, but it is true about the world
that He's given us as well, the environment. Making sure
that we treat this world well, but not making it

(34:40):
into a God. What a great reminder that God placed
us as sub regients over this place. Craig, thank you
so much for coming on to the show. I hope
that we can do this in the future too. Appreciate you, brother,
Thank you very much. Yeah. Absolutely, folks. Again, that's Craig Rucker, President,
co founder of C Fact. Again C fact dot com,
c fact dot org to learn more more financial issues

(35:04):
on the way right around the corner after this break here,
we'll be right backstick with us.

Speaker 3 (35:28):
The opinions and recommendations expressed on this program do not
necessarily represent the opinions of the station or any of
the program sponsors. Additionally, all products or services offered by
the program sponsors may not be known by the program.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Great to be here with you, folks. I'm enjoying the
show today. I hope you all are as well. As
we're starting the week. It is Tuesday, so we did
start the week yesterday, but it kind of feels like
to start two a week. Sam, that's right, So good
to see so many of you here. Brian from Virginia, Brian,
glad you got your question answered there. Nathan from Mississippi
as well. We've got James in South Carolina, John from Alabama,

(36:09):
Daniel in Tennessee. Good to see you guys. I think
I mentioned Brian from Virginia, but there you are again, Brian,
Lisa in Texas. Good to see Lisa this morning. Tucker
from Alabama. Hey, Tucker, asking a great question there, brother.
I would like to give that question the appropriate time
that it deserves and also the appropriate thought as well.

(36:29):
So my hope and plan is to answer that question tomorrow, Tucker.
So if you stick around for the show tomorrow, we'll
make sure to prioritize your question. It really is a
good one. It's a great question. There's really good So
I look forward to talking about just just one that
you know, I think for right now, having just seen
it right off the bat, I think I and I
know Sam would feel this way too. We want to
be able to just really kind of dig into it
and give you a really good, solid answer for it.

(36:50):
So stick around on the show tomorrow. Daniel saying, what
would Nancy tray WWNT. That's right, Daniel, a successful investment strategy?
I want there was a whole Twitter account? What wouldst trade?

Speaker 1 (37:02):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (37:02):
Absolutely does well, that's exactly right. Brian and Kara. Good
to see you guys. Let's see we have our Elijah
there as well. Always good to see Dave and Darlene
as well. It seems sam like the consensus in the
chat is that, of course insider trading is bad and
it could be a conflict of interest to have politicians
have access to insider trading and also potentially have their

(37:27):
lucrative stock portfolios possibly impacting their political decisions. So interesting stuff.

Speaker 3 (37:32):
It's quite a bit of sense.

Speaker 2 (37:32):
Yeah, yeah, it seems to me. All right, folks, let's
get to Craig Algert here. We've got the agroport and
then we'll be back talking about what's happening this week
in the economy and the markets. Here's Craig with today's agriport.

Speaker 9 (37:45):
This is Craig, how guard with your financial issues. Egg
update for August fifth corn futures closed the lower yesterday
with several contracts hitting new lows mid expectations for a
record large harvest. The crop ratings last night put this
crop at seventy three percent good day excellent, which is
better than what the trade was expecting. In export world,
US basis at the Gulf continues to undercut Brazil despite

(38:07):
Brazil being well into its harvest. The US currently holds
a forty cents per bushl advantage over Brazil on corn
delivered to Asia. December corn finished the day three and
three quarter cents lower at four dollars and seven cents
per bushel. Sebeans benefitted from solid exports as the US
basis continues to attract non Asian business spout offers that
are eighty to ninety cents per bushel discounted to Brazil.

(38:29):
November beans were up five and a quarters cents yesterday,
ending the day at nine ninety four and a half.
Wheat markets finish mixed again, with no particular class of
weeds seeming to want to take charge at the moment.
The continuing weakening of the US dollar has not been
able to generate much support for wheat as late over.
Yesterday's export inspections of twenty two million bushels were at
the upper end of what the trade was looking for,

(38:51):
while at the closing beil we had Minneapolis September week
three quarters of a cent higher at five seventy three.
Kansas City dropped by opinion three quarters to close at
five seventeen. In Chicago was totally unchanged at five sixteen
and three quarters. Cotton futures just continued to chop sideways
in kind of an aimless fashion. December futures ended the
session yesterday twenty eight points higher at sixty six sixty four.

(39:14):
Livestock future has had a pretty strong start to the week.
Ut October live cattle forty two and a half cents
higher at two hundred and twenty four dollars and ten
cents per hundredweight. September feet er cattle rose by fifty
two and a half cents as they ended the session
three undred and thirty four dollars and forty five cents
per hundred and October Leno had futures were eighty five
cents better at ninety dollars and ninety cents per hundred weight.

(39:35):
Class three milk futures many strong moved to the upside
as they closed higher for the third consecutive session. When
the closing bell sounded, we have September futures thirty seven
points better, settling at eighteen eleven. This has been Craig
Hollguard with your financial issues egg update. We'll be right
back with more financial issues after this.

Speaker 2 (39:56):
Always appreciate Craig what he's doing, Hey, folks, earnings calls.
So a bit of a lighter earnings week this week. However,
we did get possibly, you know, maybe one of the
bigger ones reported yesterday. Pallenteer had a great report. Revenue
eclipsed one billion for the first time, and their earnings
per share increased slightly. Their revenue, yeah, just over one

(40:16):
one billion versus the nine er and forty million expected,
so seeming to do pretty well the rest of the week.
Today we get Caterpillar, then tomorrow we get McDonald's, Disney
and others. Thursday we get Eli, Lilly, Toyota, Conico, Phillips
and others, and then not much on Friday. So really,
Wednesday is probably actually the biggest cohesive day with those
two heavy hitters. There a couple of quick headlines here

(40:38):
for you. The US has collected two twenty nine billion
dollars in tariff revenues in July. That's a new monthly record, Sam.
I can't help but wonder if that tariff revenue might
even be going up as we see that too. I
know that was more than what we saw in June.
I think June might have been twenty seven billion. So
oh oh yeah.

Speaker 3 (40:53):
I mean, it's definitely going to keep going up. If
Scotts is right, We're going to make something like three
hundred billion dollars this year.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
Yep, yep, for sure. Elsewhere we saw Trump firing the
Biden appointed labor statistics boss after major revisions to jobs reports.
Interesting stuff there. You heard Art mentioned that Donald Trump
was gushing a little bit over the Sydney Sweeney ad
and American Eagle stock, which by the way, is not
biblically responsible, has soared since then. Also, I think so

(41:20):
something like Christ's ridiculous. They may have clawed back their
yearly losses. They were tanking for the year down.

Speaker 3 (41:26):
You just need Donald Trump to come out thumb.

Speaker 2 (41:28):
Need that and some old fashioned advertising, right. And then,
of course Newsmax is reporting that New York City elites
are forming super PACs now in an effort to defeat
Zoron Mom Donnie. That'll be an interesting battle there, the
elites versus the guy who's also elite but is claiming
to be for the people, as all Marxists are. So

(41:48):
interesting stuff there. Nonetheless, Sam, I think one of the
bigger headlines we should look at here is the EU
paused its retaliatory tariff while a deal's being worked out.
Can you tell us about this one?

Speaker 3 (41:57):
Yes, this was behind that market spike yesterday. Everything ended
pretty well in the markets as of the closing yesterday,
and this was pretty much the main cause. Every major
index jumped by around one percent yesterday upon news that
the EU was now pausing all its retaliatory tariffs on
the US while a deal was finalized. Those tariffs were
set to take effect by the end of this week.

(42:18):
This comes as Trump announced a trade deal last month
with the EU featuring a fifteen percent tariff on all
EU imports, while in return, the US will have open
access to EU markets, so no American goods being sold
in the EU will have any tariffs on them. Meanwhile, Trump,
at the same time is now threatening to quote substantially
increase tariffs on India, which he accused of fueling the

(42:40):
quote Russian war machine by purchasing Russian oil.

Speaker 2 (42:44):
It's good, Sam, I appreciate that, continuing to see the
wheeling and dealing there, so if any news breaks that
the next couple of days, we'll be sure to give
it to you. Their folks. Speaking of the markets, they
opened about twenty minutes ago. Everything is moderately positive. The
dal Jones is basically at the flat line right now,
the SB five hundred is up about a fifth of
a percent. The Nasdaq ride in the highest so far
about two fifths of a percent. Positive. Oil right now

(43:07):
sits at sixty five and a half dollars a barrel. Meanwhile,
the US ten yure treasury yield is right at four
point two two percent as we sit this morning, Sam,
I think we got time for this question here from Joe.
What's Joe asking us here?

Speaker 3 (43:19):
Yes, Joe asked. He's seventy three. He says, hello, I'm
reorganizing our portfolio into the income model, and in doing so,
I'm finding some stocks not on the broad list. He
lists a couple of them, and he's asking did he
miss a cell? He said, I did go back and
checked for sales and didn't find anything. What is your opinion.
I want to stay bri and decrease my inventory. Thank

(43:40):
you so much for your advice.

Speaker 2 (43:42):
Well, Joe, thanks for your question. Yeah, to our knowledge
and Sam just did a quick look on these as well.
These positions you're referring to have never been on our list,
So you didn't miss a cell. They were just never
there to begin with. And you know, Joe, it brings
up a good question. I'm glad you asked, the question
being what do I do if I have old stocks
that I previously owned before becoming a Financial Issues part
and they're not on our list, nor have they ever been.

(44:03):
The answer, truthfully is it might depend. So I would
tell you a first thing to do is check to
see if these stocks are biblically responsible or not. And
you can go onto our website Financial Issues dot Org
under the resources tab and click that evaluator button on
our website. That's the place to check that you can
go and you can do that. It's free. You can
check to see if it's biblically responsible. If it is
not biblically responsible, it's a very easy answer. You sell

(44:26):
it immediately. And I would tell you sell it no
matter if you're up or down. It's unfortunate to have
to sell it a loss, but it's far better to
be obedient to God, truthfully, and I know it's easier
said than done, folks. I don't like selling it losses either,
but if you're obedient to God, that's far better. It's
far better to take the loss than to knowingly invest
in darkness and ride it out for a chance at

(44:46):
a gain, even if the gain is large. Now, if
they do pass BRI screening, that makes things a little
more complicated. You now have a few options before you.
You can still sell and reallocate based off our stock picks.
That could be a great recommendation, especially if you trust us.
I think that could be good. But you can also
hold these positions and see what happens. You know, if
they've done well for you, that's not a bad move.

(45:07):
There's one disclaimer here for this one, folks. If you
choose to hold the position, just be aware we don't
have eyes on it. So if something happens, anything happens
to the company, if there's a if there's some troubling
financial things, or if they go non biblically responsible, if
they start supporting abortion, or if they start promoting gay
pride parades, we won't know about it. We were not

(45:29):
going to be able to give you a sell awerk
because we don't have eyes on that company, So you're
going to need to do your own due diligence there.
It's really kind of investing at your own risk. You're
going to need to keep an eye You're going to
kind of have to do your own biblically responsible screening
and all that sort of thing, So just be prepared
for that. You know. One of the beauty's Joe of
this strategy is that it's to do it yourself strategy.
And so if you have those holdings that are biblically
responsible but they're not on our list, it's kind of

(45:51):
up to you to see what you want to do
with them. So I hope that that can answer your question.
You can certainly, you know, sell and join the stocks
that we have on our list, or you can ride
it out and kind of and you know, kind of
your own bri manager there and just keeping an eye
on it. And that's really kind of the big thing,
is that disclaimer of just making sure that you've got

(46:11):
eyes on it, because we don't have eyes on it
if it's not on our list. Okay, I hope that
can be helpful for you there. Joe appreciate the question
a lot, and that is just about all we have
time for today, folks, So great to be here with you. Hey,
Just a reminder remember to be on the lookout for
the commentary, probably later on this evening early tomorrow morning.
Check that out. It'll be a good thing for you

(46:32):
to continue to keep an eye out for that. Hope
you were encouraged by today's show. Folks, I had a
great time with you and Lord Willing. We will do
it again tomorrow. Until then, remember it's all His. Everything
you have belongs to the Lord, so be a good
and faithful steward with what He's given to you. God
bless you all, and Lord Willing. We'll see you next
time for more financial issues.

Speaker 5 (47:08):
If we ever forget that we're one nation under God,
then we will be a nation gone under