Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
December 7, 1941 changed America. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called it, “A date which will live in infamy.” Americans were stunned that an enemy would dare attack America’s shores. The horror of the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii that would bring the United States into World War II served as a uniting event, bringing Americans together for a single cause: To defeat the monsters that attacked America.
The Japanese Empire killed over 2,400 Americans in and around Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. 1,177 of those deaths were those who died aboard the USS Arizona battleship. That was 86 years ago, and though many people in today’s society know nothing about the attack, or couldn’t even tell you the significance of December 7th if asked, the memory of that day lives on in those that were alive when America was attacked.
For many who lived through World War II, everyday during the war, in their heart, was December 8th. Most veterans I have talked to who served in World War II said it was the attack on Pearl Harbor that sent them to the military recruiting offices to join the war, and fight for America.
Women joined the factories to work as builders of aircraft and other war machines. They planted “Victory Gardens” to grow their own vegetables, as many items were in short supply partly due to the war effort, and partly due to the Great Depression.
It became a moment in history that united a country after over a decade of pain as America worked to get beyond the crippling economic depression that had waged its own war against America since 1929.
Pearl Harbor survivors, and World War II veterans, are nearly all gone. Only a handful remain.
As with the terror attacks on 9/11, no one should forget the stunning attack on American soil at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Though the memories are fading, and the importance of that day is being forgotten by some, for many it still remains a date which will live in infamy. It is our duty to never forget.
Forget History, and it will repeat itself.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Founding Fathers did not intend for presidential pardons to be unlimited in the way President Joseph Biden recently gave away one for his son, Hunter Biden. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President the power to “grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” During the Constitutional Convention during the Summer of 1787, if one refers to Madison’s Notes on the Federal Convention, there was significant debate regarding the scope of the President’s power to pardon, with George Mason (who later did not sign the Constitution because it failed to have a Bill of Rights) verbalizing concern that the President might abuse his power to pardon to protect his political allies, or even to commit treason. James Madison led a chorus of Founders who argued that pardons should be limited, especially in cases of treason, and that there should be some kind of check against a President’s ability to pardon. They were concerned, after all, that the President may try to operate like a king, and use his powers to consolidate political power or operate in a manner that he assumed was out of reach and beyond any outside oversight.
The intention may have also been, when it came to the opinions of various Founding Fathers, that conviction must be required before a pardon may be offered, but in the language used in the constitutional clause regarding pardons, the text does not specify the requirement of a conviction. The Court’s, in turn, have chosen to broadly interpret the clause, considering the pardon power as being “plenary,” and not subject to congressional modification. That said, abuse of the power to pardon may still be subject to scrutiny, and could lead to a President being subject to a potential impeachment if the power is abused.
Following the War Between the States, after which the Lincolnian Republicans claimed that the secession of the Confederate States was also considered to be insurrection, the Republicans called for former Confederate Officials to be not only disallowed to hold office ever again, but that if they were lawyers they must be disbarred. With the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln, there was genuine concern that his successor, Democrat Andrew Johnson from Tennessee, may try to use his position as President to pardon his fellow southerners. However, the 1867 Ex parte Garland case, when it reached the Supreme Court, established after the High Court’s ruling that the President’s pardon power is unlimited (except in cases of impeachment), that the pardon did not require a conviction, and that Congress may not punish anyone for any crime covered by a presidential pardon.
After President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 due to the pressure of the Watergate Scandal, and shortly before Congress had a chance to impeach him, President Gerald Ford established a precedent regarding pardons that followed the allowances established by the Ex parte Garland ruling by pardoning Nixon with a “full, free, and absolute pardon,” ending any possibility of indictment.
Armed with that knowledge, President Joe Biden provided for his son, Hunter Biden, the mother of all pardons. The sweeping blanket pardon pretty much let’s Hunter off the hook for all of his Biden family criminal activities for the last ten years. The political world has gone crazy in all different directions regarding the pardon, and Karine Jean-Pierre, President Joe Biden’s Press Secretary and one of his senior advisors, found herself talking to the media while fielding questions aboard Air Force One about it, claiming that Hunter Biden was targeted with lawsuits because of his last name – calling any legal targeting of the President’s son “war politics.” The President’s Press Secretary claimed Joe Biden’s sweeping blanket pardon was necessary because the cases brought against Hunter Biden were “politically infected.” Any opposition to Biden’s pardon, according to Jean-Pierre, is a “twisting and misrepresenting” of the issue. Of the inquiries and charges against Hunter Biden, Jean-Pierre stated that President Biden “believes that war politics infected the process and it led to a miscarriage of justice.”
The issuance of the pardon, we are being told, therefore, is essentially saying that the sweeping pardon of Hunter by President Biden was necessary to correct a wrong, a wrong of false prosecution and a “miscarriage of justice.” Before the pardon was recently issued, both Biden and Jean-Pierre repeatedly assured Americans there would be no pardon out of respect to the legal system and so that they would not sound like the hated Trump sounded – arguing that the criminal cases were brought on because of political motivation. Suddenly, they don’t respect the justice system? Suddenly, it’s necessary to bail out the President’s son, and in such a way that he can’t even be investigated over any wrong doing over the last ten years?
Despite the assurance that a pardon would not happen (yet another lie noticed by the voting public), Hunter Biden’s clemency includes not only federal crimes that he has been charged with, convicted of, or that he admitted guilt to, but the pardon issued insulates Biden’s son from ever facing any federal crimes he may have possibly committed during the span of the last decade. As Biden’s critics scream that the pardon goes beyond the pale regarding what was intended regarding presidential pardons, the White House’s response runs back to the pardon of Richard Nixon.
Hunter Biden is safe not just regarding anything he has been charged with, but anything that he could be charged with even though those charges have not seen the light of day, yet. Joe Biden gave his son a “full and unconditional” pardon that is written with so much ambiguity that it is designed to outlast any challenges. On the table for Hunter Biden, if not for this pardon, would be charges of bribery, illegal lobbying, and various criminal activities stemming from his foreign business activities and drug addiction. America expected the pardon to be for the gun crimes for which Hunter was convicted and the tax crimes for which he pleaded guilty, but nobody expected that the pardon would cover all “offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in” from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.
The starting date in 2014 makes sure that Hunter Biden’s activities as a board member of Burisma Holdings, a Ukranian gas company what was being used to launder criminal monies during a time in which the Ukrainian government could easily be considered the most corrupt government in the world. At the time, Joe Biden was Vice President, and the pardon would also shield Joe from any involvement including his infamous influence peddling schemes.
In an interesting twist, Biden’s special counsel David Weiss filed a motion with the California federal court overseeing Hunter Biden’s tax case to not dismiss the case, despite the pardon. The move reveals that the federal prosecutor rejects Hunter’s Pardon as valid, making one wonder how many other members of Biden’s own Justice Department recognizes the corruptness of the pardon.
Considering the pardon came the day after Trump announced he would nominate Kash Patel as FBI director, and considering Biden’s hands being constantly involved in Hunter’s illegal activities (if not acting as a guiding force receiving direct benefits), it is pretty obvious that Biden’s pardon of Hunter Biden was not provided due to love for his son, but self-preservation. Remember, Kash Patel, who previously served Trump as Chief of Staff to the U.S. Secretary of Defense, said of Hunter’s plea deal during the scramble to resolve his legal troubles (a deal that ultimately did not see the light of day), “As a former federal public defender and national security prosecutor, this case has singularly done more damage to the institution of justice than I’ve ever seen in my life.”
The legal world is basically saying that the nature of the sweeping pardon will bar the Justice Department from pursuing any criminal probes into Hunter’s life over the last decade. However, that does not mean that Hunter cannot be pursued. Criminals can’t help themselves, and I suspect after daddy is no longer President of the United States, Hunter will continue acting like a criminal.
O.J. Simpson’s trial also created an interesting precedent that, while I believe doing what they did was Double Jeopardy, after Simpson escaping his criminal trial they went after him civilly. While Hunter has been pardoned from all potential criminal convictions, he can still receive a civil judgment for activities during that decade.
The biggest oopsie, however, by Joe Biden regarding his son’s pardon is that it opens up Hunter as being a very dangerous witness. Now he can be used to testify for any and all people who are being chased after judicially, and he can’t use the Fifth Amendment’s “Right to Remain Silent” clause. The purpose of the clause is to protect a person from self-incriminating. Since he has been pardoned, no self-incrimination is possible, therefore the Fifth Amendment may not be used as a way to keep his mouth shut. He’s been pardoned, so there is no chance of self-incrimination, therefore he has to sing like a canary or be guilty of contempt if called to testify against Daddy “The Big Guy” Joe Biden, or any of the other criminal Democrats.
That final thing about the Fifth Amendment is why Joe Biden is considering spreading his pardon powers all over the place, I think. Then again, I am sure they realized that with, or without, Hunter’s testimony all of the criminal Democrats may be subject to indictment.
In the end, however, the Dcmocrats are also forgetting about the most important court of all. While they are utilizing Biden’s pardon-power to keep themselves out of jail, the public is watching the whole thing and the Court of Public Opinion may rule against them in the future when it comes to trying to regain political power by electoral means. While they may be playing games to keep themselves out of jail, if they keep the antics that show they believe they are above the law going, the Democratic Party may begin to fade into the annals of history, forgotten and powerless like the Federalist Party by the 1820s, and the Whigs by the 1860s.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
|
|
|
|
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Constitutional Liberty hinges on a biblical foundation that includes Free Will, God-Given/Natural Rights, and the Rule of Law which also finds its foundation on biblical principles as well as the natural order of things. Government and liberty, when properly operating for the good of a civilization, is a biblical practice that follows godly principles, but it is also a system that is beneficial for all people who participate in the society in question. So, while the American System has a Christian foundation, non-Christians also prosper under such a system of Liberty. While it may be predicated upon godly axioms – long established and accepted truths that were understood as being a part of the natural order of things as had been put into action by Creation, the idea of liberty reaches out to everyone regardless of your belief system. Truth is a powerful thing, and the Founding Fathers understood what these truths are, and referred to them and agreed they exist when they accepted Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, which tells us that “these truths are self-evident.”
While Divine Providence fueled the American Revolution, the aim was to ensure that all Americans enjoyed the Blessings of Liberty, meaning their Natural Rights. The Founding Fathers believed that there is such a thing as truth, and that truth not only exists but that it is self-evident. They believed that God exists, and that God made truth understandable to human beings and that to recognize it we simply need to seek it out. God’s commandments are based on those truths, and if a civilization rises using those truths it will prosper. Those truths are not only laid out biblically, but throughout history for us to observe. When certain truths are denied, and paths away from those truths are followed, consequences arise that will ultimately destroy the civilization in question. When God’s truths are set aside and the rule of law gives way to the rule of man then an orderly society is no longer achievable.
One of the things we have been witnessing in our modern world has been the rise of destruction and chaos and a systematic attempt to kill God and biblical truth. But, if we destroy God and biblical truth, and decide that truth is relevant or pluralistic, then the culture itself with wither and ultimately the society will die – something that is not good, regardless of who you are, and what you believe. In our modern world we have seen a rise in the frequency and destructiveness of fiery riots, we have seen the acceptance by many of the chopping up children’s body parts in the name of tolerance and fairness, and we have begun chasing false science that denies the scientific method and the endless search for knowing the unknown – instead, settling for consensus and political funding of false ideas. As the world descends into war, rumors of war, immorality and rebellion against the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers and biblical foundational axioms, we have seen a rise of chaos, division, and attacks against a moral and godly foundation for our country. Benjamin Franklin warned us about such folly, saying, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Today’s purveyors of what we call “leftwing politics” support rule of man truths that are contrary to the rule of law truths recognized by the Founding Fathers and biblical principles. They are chasing a French Revolution way of viewing things. The American Revolution was anchored by the ideas of individualism, natural rights, liberty and a godly society. The French Revolution was fueled by secularism and collectivism masquerading as a push for liberty and rights. A quick view of history reveals which of the two was the more successful revolution. Which country emerged from its revolution and became a vastly prosperous and powerful system? And, which one continues to this day to wallow in its failed ideas of collectivistic socialism?
We have to remember that the forces of evil are counterfeiters. They warp truth, make claims that seem reasonable on the surface, but in reality are untruthful and are making completely false claims. Liberty is one of those things they like to warp into something it’s not. Liberty is not a free for all, but a system in which we have the freedom to do as we please as long as that liberty is being practiced responsibly and doesn’t interfere with another’s pursuit of their own natural rights. The responsibility that accompanies our liberty hinges on the foundational nature of our rights. While we have been convinced that our rights are something guided, defined, protected and guaranteed by government, the Founding Fathers never made that claim. Your rights, natural rights as they were called by the Founders and philosophers like John Locke, come from God (or belong to you naturally if you must deny God’s existence). They are, as the Saxons believed, dispensated by natural forces. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote that humans are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” Whether you believe your rights belong to you because of God, or natural dispensation by forces you don’t understand, in the end the final conclusion is the same: Government did not give them to you, nor has any authority to dictate or define them.
When referring to our rights, Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence also explains that while we automatically possess life and liberty, the others must be pursued (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness). We do not have a “right to be happy,” but if government is operating properly, we have the right to “pursue” that happiness. Our rights are rights only as long as they don’t interfere with another’s rights, but that does not mean that one must bend, twist, dictate or deny one’s rights to ensure another’s rights are achievable. An important part of ensuring we maintain an orderly society are the establishment of rules (consent of the governed), and the existence of consequences when we violate another’s rights, while also maintaining a certain level of responsibility regarding our rights.
Whether or not someone’s rights are violated is where we seem to go astray. We quibble, claiming rights are violated when they are not, failing to recognize the free market aspect of our rights and our responsibilities as they are related to our pursuit of happiness.
Some violations of rights are easy to recognize. A murderer may not claim to have the right to murder when their victim had the right to life. Murder is a violation of another’s right to live so a legal consequence must be put in place, and in our society the penalty does not change if some lunatic claims they have a right to murder.
When it comes to abortion, which is seen as murder to those who abhor the practice because they recognize an unborn baby as being a person, those who support abortion call it a reproduction right and the right of a woman regarding the privacy of her own body. The issue hinges on the idea of whether or not the unborn baby is a person. From a constitutional standpoint, if the baby is a person then the child has a right to live and that “right” to abort is not a right because it violates the baby’s right to live. The segment of society who argues that abortion is a right also argues that an unborn baby is not a person, therefore, there is no violation of another’s right to live.
Sometimes, our claimed rights interfere with another’s rights, but it’s not because another’s rights are targeted but because we are attempting to achieve our rights in the same arena. So, to essentially keep us from running into each other as we pursue our happiness, we put rules in place to make sure everyone may carry out their pursuit of happiness in an orderly fashion. Travel in a motor vehicle is a great example of this. I may wish to pursue my right to travel to a destination, but there are others on the road who also possess the right to travel, so we have established rules of the road, and a system that maintains one must prove they can follow the rules of the road; possessing a license showing that the person achieved that privilege. When it comes to intersections, signal lights have been put in place not to eliminate one’s right to go through the intersection, but to ensure it is accomplished in an orderly fashion. One’s right to navigate an intersection, after all, stops at the edge of the bumper of another vehicle being operated by a person who also believes they have a right to navigate the intersection. We have, in turn, established rules that include stop signs, traffic signals, right of way and so forth. Those rules do not keep us from pursuing our travel happiness, they just make sure we achieve them in an orderly fashion. When those rules are violated, the situation is investigated, and consequences are applied to ensure we are all playing nicely in the game of pursuing happiness, and that violators receive an appropriate punishment for breaking the rules.
Recognizing that our rights are something we pursue, other things might become clearer as we discuss our desire to pursue them. For example, we don’t have a right to health care which means we don’t have a right to demand that taxpayer money pays for our healthcare and that government “guarantees” it. However, we do have a right to pursue it by participating in the free market and choosing which option best fits our needs. Government’s job is to get out of the way so that we may make those choices without their interference, and in some cases putting laws in place to make sure that the process is based on a moral foundation and a playing field that disallows bad actors from taking advantage of those in the arena.
We may also not necessarily have a right to education in the sense that government is tasked with protecting and guaranteeing it, but we do have a right to pursue our education. Government may offer public options, but since we are free to pursue our happiness regarding education, we should also have available to us the ability to make the choice not to choose the public option. One might opt to homeschool their children, or send them to a private school that uses a curriculum that better suits their beliefs or desires when it comes to the education of their children. As an individual seeking my own continued education I must also have the free choice to pursue a trade school or collegiate education, and if I opt for the latter, it must be left to me to make my own decision regarding if I decide to pursue a public college, private college, or some other option that may include deciding not to further my education at all.
One’s natural rights also extend to our participation in a free market of products and services. In the long-run it is all about personal decisions, and in the process there may also be certain governmental laws that might be necessary to ensure safety in the market while not necessarily interfering with the actual operations of the market. For example, if I wish to open up a tire store, it is not government’s place to say that I must instead open a donut shop. Or, when it comes to my tire store, it is not government’s place to demand that I carry snow tires along with all of the other styles of tires in my inventory. However, if the public votes into place a desire for laws making sure tire stores don’t sell tires with holes in them, it would be appropriate for government to make sure my tires maintain a certain standard of quality.
With the rise of civil rights laws we have introduced an idea that masquerades as fairness, but actually demands preferential treatment. Armed with the false idea that government dictates and defines our rights, and is responsible for protecting and guaranteeing our rights, hordes of groups armed with the concept of identity politics have made a mockery of our legal system, and have been systematically attacking what liberty is truly all about. As a result, we have bought into a concept that our rights must be fulfilled as we demand, therefore producers or retailers must make certain products or services available regardless of their inventory or type of establishment in order to accommodate the demands of certain groups of people. For example, one might claim that they have a right to have a cake baked a certain way, perhaps with two men on top of a wedding cake. But, because our rights are not supposed to interfere with another’s rights, in a true world of liberty a Christian baker might say, “we don’t offer that product,” and be completely within their legal right to say so. After all, it is the buyer’s right to “pursue” their happiness, not demand that someone else’s rights be violated in order to accommodate them. Remember, our rights are something to be pursued, and if the avenue we are pursuing them on does not produce what we are looking for, it is our responsibility to pursue them elsewhere.
Our courts, however, have decided that despite religious freedoms as enumerated in the First Amendment, and despite the reality that it is not government’s place to demand by law (or judicial fiat) that a particular business produce a particular product whether they like it or not, Christian bakers have no choice and must bake homosexual cakes because that particular group demands it. Liberty would demand that one group cannot violate the rights of another, so the right answer would have been that the same-sex couple should have continued to pursue their happiness elsewhere, seeking a baker that is willing to offer the product that they seek. It is not a violation of the homosexual couple’s right to have a cake baked the way they want if the Christian baker says they won’t do it. That’s like demanding that a tire store must also sell snow tires, or that a donut shop must also provide a clothing line. Government’s role in this instance was to stay out of the way and let the free market do what it does. Somewhere out there a baker exists that was willing to bake the cake the couple wanted – it was just a matter of pursuing it. If a true violation of one’s rights in this instance was to arise, it would exist in the form of a law saying that it was illegal to bake that kind of cake. No law like that exists, so despite the claims of the gay agenda, their rights have not been violated because a Christian baker says that they don’t offer that product.
The Founding Fathers believed in equality, and by that they meant that we are “created equal,” but our journey is our own. Government must not create by law a privileged class like the nobility that existed in European countries, and that government’s role was primarily to stay out of the picture as much as possible – a concept known as laissez faire. Equality is not achieved by segments of society bowing to ensure that everyone celebrates or complies with the demands of a particular group, but that government does not pass laws that discriminates against a particular group. The wonderful thing about America is we do indeed have true equality as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. While we have certain groups claiming that they don’t have equality in America, the argument is easily settled by a simple series of questions.
Are there any laws that prohibit you from achieving anything you want to do that other groups are allowed to do based one’s race, color, ethnicity, or lifestyle? Are there any laws that prohibit you from purchasing things or being employed simply because of the “group” that you are a member of? Crying about decisions of non-government entities, like the hiring practices of a Christian institution, or the claim that someone is “misgendered,” has nothing to do with law and everything to do with the practices of certain entities. It gets us back to the tire stores and bakers. That’s not a lack of liberty, that’s a demand for other’s rights to be interfered with because of some kind of narcissistic demand for entitlement. If you don’t like how a particular business operates, or what products they offer, then shop somewhere else. If you don’t like what a particular group thinks of you, hang out with different people. If you don’t like what a radio host says? Change the station. You have the liberty to do so. It’s self-evident.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Buying American, we all believe, is better for our own producers and domestic economy. Tariffs can be beneficial to protecting American manufacturing and production, as well. While we all understand that we live in a global market, and the need to have trading partners goes all the way back to the dawn of America’s existence, there needs to be a balance that ensures our exports exceed our imports. A country’s overall economic prosperity often hinges on its ability to produce domestically, and maintain independence in various markets. Buying too many foreign goods can often be very hazardous to our economy in ways that we don’t even realize. So, I appreciate those who buy American, or purchase foreign products largely produced in the United States because the non-American producer decided to set up shop in the United States to ease the burden of certain tariffs.
Tariffs can be a very important tool on our belt when it comes to foreign trade, and making sure that the playing field is tilted a little bit in our favor.
One of my neighbors whose livelihood is dependent upon the local timber industry told me recently that there’s an agreement that the Biden Administration has been working on with Canada that could destroy our lumber industry since Canadian lumber is so much cheaper. I looked into it, and it is connected to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), but the Biden Administration, despite arguing about how dangerous Trump’s call for certain tariffs are, used tariffs to mitigate the damage a glut of Canadian lumber into the United States might cause. In August the Democrats backed off regarding the pending agreement and increased the lumber tariff that not only saved the U.S. lumber industry from certain destruction, but by November of 2024 the tariff was a part of contributing to an increase in the American output of lumber that has the United States poised to surpass Canada’s production.
Nonetheless, the Democrats, largely fueled by their desire to do anything to resist Trump and sour any opinion regarding his policies, have the politically leftward segment of America freaked out about tariffs, and specifically Trump’s threat of tariffs against countries like Mexico, Canada, and China.
I was privy, recently, to a conversation between two ladies who were discussing the tendency of one of them purchasing products from a website known to be owned by China. When we travel, in fact, this particular relative tells my wife and I that if we buy her a souvenir, it preferably needs to be locally made, but at least make sure it’s not made in China. I can appreciate such a sentiment. The not-so-conservative member of the two ladies then went on to explain to the other that her ability to buy from the Chinese-owned website was going to go away thanks to Trump. His tariffs were going to drive Chinese product prices up to ridiculous levels, and eventually those products will simply cease from being available to American consumers and inflation in the United States is going to skyrocket to unbelievable heights.
The debate over the tariffs from China, especially if one’s primary source of information is from the mainstream media, fails to take into account economic principles and market forces. Democratic Party talking heads and their Republican establishment allies have basically argued that any tariffs used are evil, and that Trump is going to tank the economy and send inflation wildly out of control if he uses them. They fail to verbalize that tariffs are a fact of life in a number of industries, such as the timber industry, and that they themselves support those particular tariffs. They also fail to communicate that every cause has an effect. Every happening has consequences, both good and bad. They assume with their words, and therefore convince the general public of the same, that China will simply raise their prices to accommodate the tariffs. Yet, somehow, they tell you the opposite is true when it comes to corporate taxes.
Market forces are interesting to watch, and can be predictable if one watches long enough, and understands economics. There’s the whole supply and demand thing, and sometimes it goes even deeper than that.
In a free market the ultimate goal is to make a profit. Along the way there are various obstacles that includes the cost of doing business that include, but are not limited to, taxes, wages, transportation costs, and the cost of raw materials of certain products or the cost of the products when bought wholesale. When a fast food restaurant, for example, as we’ve seen in California, is faced with higher taxes, and increased minimum wage laws, either the business must raise prices, or reduce costs, or create a complex variation that includes both. Sometimes, the business will end up out of business, or wind up closing some (or all) of its California locations if it is a countrywide entity. To reduce costs the restaurant may reduce the hours available to its employees, or reduce the number of employees through various schemes that might include reduced operating hours or an increase of automation. In the end the people who think they are going to make more money wind up making less. If prices go up the company will probably sell less product, and the tax revenue will actually be reduced since in the face of a higher corporate tax percentage the company must reduce its tax burden through less output. Typically, in the end, higher minimum wage laws raise the unemployment rate, and higher corporate tax rates reduces tax revenue for the taxing agency.
China’s reality of facing higher tariffs creates a similar scenario. For China, a tariff is an increase in the cost of doing business. So, while raising prices and reducing how much product is imported into the United States by China is one possible scenario, the likelihood is that China will pursue other avenues. America, after all, is China’s primary customer, and their economy could be in big trouble if they are not moving product in the direction of the United States.
They may, with the desire to continue a profitable relationship with the United States, begin to metaphorically kiss Trump’s butt to convince him to reduce the tariff to what they consider a manageable level. They may reduce their price to accommodate that increase caused by the tariff. Or, they may seek to reduce some of the costs involved with doing business like the restaurants in California. In economics there are always responses to actions, and if a leader is skilled enough they will use tariffs to not only level the playing field, but possibly encourage more domestic output, or perhaps even enable domestic manufacturing of foreign products which is good for American workers, and acceptable to most foreign producers who are seeking to reduce the cost of doing business when it comes to the cost imposed by a tariff.
The rhetoric about the dangerous Trump tariffs is political hyperbole, for the most part. More than likely, to keep our business, China will do what it can to either convince Trump to reduce the tariff, or to reduce their costs elsewhere if they can. And, if prices go up a little bit on Chinese produced products, that also is good because it opens the door for American manufacturing to be able to compete.
The interesting thing is that the argument about the dangers of tariffs goes all the way back to the beginning of the twentieth century. Before the ratification (one might say “alleged ratification”) of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, the primary sources for funding the federal government were an income tax on the States (based on population as determined by the census) and tariffs. So, as a part of the argument designed to defend the new individual direct tax on citizens tariffs were framed as being a bad thing for the economy. The debate against tariffs worsened when the Great Depression emerged, with the Democrats claiming that the Smoot-Hawley Act (large tariff on foreign goods) was the cause of the Great Depression. Despite the fact that the Great Depression began prior to the Smoot-Hawley Act, people believed the rhetoric, and the evils of tariffs in the minds of the American People was further solidified. The argument was necessary from the point of view of the purveyors of the Federal Reserve – they dared not reveal that the true cause of the Great Depression was the Federal Reserve which flooded the monetary system with fiat currency and then reaped the benefits through a gain of assets as creditors seized property due to failures by borrowers to maintain the payments of their loans. In short, the Great Depression was the greatest asset seizure by bankers in the history of the world.
Since the “tariffs are evil” argument has been in the Democratic Party arsenal for over a century, of course they leaped on tariffs being evil when Trump began to talk about using tariffs to gain some control over foreign affairs and encourage domestic production.
Tariffs, of course, are just like anything, however, and need to be used wisely and in some kind of moderation. Too much use of heavy tariffs can ultimately damage relationships with trading partners. However, the opposite extreme is not good, either. True “free trade” allows our trading partners to skew the playing field in their favor, and tariffs can be used to tilt that field back in our favor, or at lease closer to being level so that nobody is being taken advantage of as excessively as we’ve seen prior to the emergence of President Trump.
Trump understands the delicate balance related to the use of tariffs, and he understands how valuable tariffs can be as tools for economic fairness, and even convincing countries to work with you on non-economic related issues. After all, the mere threat of tariffs now has Canada and Mexico more willing to play ball when it comes to the invasion of illegal aliens coming across the border. And in the end, as with their defense of the income tax and Federal Reserve, Democrats are screaming “danger, danger, danger” about tariffs for their own nefarious reasons, not truly because tariffs may do any of the negative things to our economy as they have been claiming.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789
Thanksgiving Proclamation
[New York, 3 October 1789]
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New-York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington