Political Pistachio
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Tariff is a beautiful word, according to President Donald Trump. It’s a tax, it’s a tool, and it has the financial world and the media in full-blown meltdown. Their argument is that tariffs cause inflation, hinders the global market of free trade, and the markets are plunging as a result. Oh, and he is somehow a fascist for using them. According to the experts and analysts, Trump’s tariffs are a disaster…
…except, they’re not.
President Trump’s sweeping tariffs have hit China at 54%, Japan at 24%, India at 26% and the European Union at 20%. And that, my friends, is all the media will tell you about the numbers.
What about the tariffs other countries hit us with? How is it proper that other countries slam us with tariffs, but if we return the favor we are going to plunge the world into chaos?
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, China has imposed:
- 15% tariffs on coal and liquefied natural gas products.
- 10% tariffs on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and large-engine cars.
- 25% tariffs on aircraft, automobiles, soybeans, and chemicals.
- 25% tariffs on medical technology.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, the United States imposed:
- In 2017 the average tariff rate on Chinese goods was about 3.1%.
Japan, in the past, has been a little bit friendlier to the United States when it came to tariffs.
- 15% tariff on imported U.S. cars (though at one time long ago it was 0%).
- Up to 5% on U.S. technology and electronics.
- Typically below 5% for general manufacturing.
However, let’s also not forget that…
- Japan has historically hit the United States with up to a 38.5% tariff on agricultural products, particularly on beef imports.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, the United States imposed a tariff rate on Japanese imports typically ranging from:
- Up to 5% on all imports from Japan.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, India imposed:
- Up to 70% on imported U.S. motorcycles and cars.
- Up to 50% on agricultural products, with even higher rates on American dairy and
poultry products.
- Up to 20% on technology and electronics.
- 5% to 10% on general manufacturing.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, the U.S. tariff rate on Indian imports was:
- Generally between 5% and 10%.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs, the European Union charged against U.S. products:
- 10% on imported U.S. Cars.
- 5% to 25% on American agricultural products.
- Up to 14% on technology and electronics.
- Up to 5% on general manufacturing.
Prior to President Trump’s recent tariffs the U.S. imposed:
- 5% on European cars.
- 10% on all other general merchandise.
Canada imposed very high tariffs on U.S. products:
- 200% (or more) on certain U.S. dairy imports.
- 1% on U.S. automobiles.
- Up to 20% on agricultural products, with even higher rates on poultry and eggs.
- Up to 5% on technology and electronics.
- Up to 5% on general manufacturing.
Meanwhile, the U.S. tariffs on Canadian products:
- 5% to 20% on dairy products.
- 5% on automobiles.
- 25% on light trucks.
- 10% on agricultural products.
- Up to 5% on technology and electronics.
- Less than 5% on general manufacturing.
Mexico has historically maintained relatively low tariffs against U.S. products:
- 10% on automobiles.
- Up to 20% on agricultural products, but higher on dairy and meat.
- Up to 15% on technology and electronics.
- Less than 5% on general merchandise.
Still, America’s rates against Mexican products tended to be lower than Mexico’s tariffs:
- 5% on automobiles.
- Up to 10% on agricultural products.
- Up to 5% on technology and electronics.
- Less than 5% on general manufacturing.
Looking at the numbers, free trade has been anything but fair. The United States has paid higher tariffs to all of our trading partners than what we were charging them. And those numbers I found were through Google and Bing – I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers against the United States have been higher, in some cases.
While a tariff is indeed a tax, it is a tax that consumers do not have to pay. There are American alternatives to foreign products. Buy products manufactured in the United States and the tariffs don’t affect you. And if we don’t manufacture certain things, we need to be and the reason we don’t is because of poor historical decisions regarding tariffs and “free trade.”
We are beginning to already see positive results to President Trump’s tariffs, and in the case of Europe we are looking at a possibility of a zero-for-zero agreement which in the end is the whole point.
It’s all about economics. The cost of doing business. If the cost of doing business goes up then as a business owner you will take actions to either reduce the cost of doing business, or you will have to raise prices. If prices go up, and you can’t compete, then reducing the cost of doing business becomes a priority. Sometimes it might be accomplished by reducing the hours of workers, decreasing the size of the workforce, increasing automation, reducing quality, changing around the raw materials you use, or a whole other host of options. If the way to reduce the cost of doing business is to do business in the United States, then the choice is obvious.
In the end, tariffs protect our economy by securing manufacturing. It is not “protectionism” in the manner the liberal progressive Marxist left might categorize it, for we are still working with our trading partners on the international stage. Free trade is no good, however, if it isn’t smart trade. Smart trading is more important than free trade and allows for a certain amount of “protection,” which is a good thing for domestic economies.
A push for globalism, which goes back way beyond the dawn of the twentieth century, has done what it could to demonize tariffs because tariffs are good for sovereignty and domestic economies. Globalism abhors individualism, even when it comes to looking out for one’s individual country. Markets are plunging because President Trump’s policies are not good for globalism, and because President Trump is treading in uncharted waters – uncharted because the globalists have known all along the treasures for a sovereign country should they navigate into those economic waters that have been falsely demonized. The markets are plunging and the left is in destruction mode because they are afraid. Afraid of Trump, and afraid that the truth about the importance of free market principles and a supply-side economic stance may become apparent and understood by the general public. And if that happens, all of the work of creeping incrementalism to convince The West to give in to socialism will shatter into pieces, and they may not be able to win another election anytime soon.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution delegates the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to belong to Congress. Therefore, Congress may make laws regarding commerce with other countries. The President of the United States is tasked to execute the laws of the United States, including those regarding commerce with other countries, and to negotiate trade strategies with those countries. In addition, Congress has passed laws recognizing the President’s foreign relations responsibilities enabling him to make some unilateral decisions when they pertain to the national security of the United States; which is why President Trump is able to launch, increase and decrease certain tariffs regarding imports from certain countries.
TikTok, while owned by a foreign investor, corporation or country, falls within the scope of foreign commerce. While the product being imported is unique in the sense that it is not a tangible material or good, it is being imported through modern technology. Therefore, Congress has the authority to make a law regulating the import of that product, and to ban it if they believe that importing the product is not in America’s best interest. President Trump, in his role to execute that law, may by executive order adjust and enact when he deems necessary the provisions of that law as long as those executive orders do not operate in contrary to any of the law’s provisions.
Banning TikTok, or requiring that it is sold to an American owner if it is to be allowed to continue to operate in the United States, as per Article I, Section 8 is Constitutional and perfectly lawful.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Douglas V. Gibbs
Bernie Sanders during one of his rallies with AOC recently explained that Donald Trump and Elon Musk and all of their billionaire friends have brought an oligarchy to the United States. He then attempted to define the word “oligarchy.” He said: “An oligarchy is when you have a handful of billionaires running the government.”
According to the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary (be aware that it spells the word slightly differently):
OL’IGRACHY, noun [Gr. few, and rule.]
A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in a few hands; a species of aristocracy.
The 1785 Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language provides:
OLIGA’RCHY. N.
A form of government which places the supreme power in a small number; aristocracy.
The worst kind of oligarchy is, when men are governed indeed by a few, and yet are not taught to know what those few be, whom they should obey. Sidney.
Dictionary dot com visited online on March 29, 2025 states:
oligarchy, noun
plural oligarchies
- A form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
- A state or organization so ruled.
- The persons or class so ruling.
While the term has been used in more modern times to describe and criticize the influence of the wealthy and powerful in politics and government – an influence that’s typically used to benefit themselves – in the strictest sense an oligarchy is not a system simply ruled by billionaires as suggested by Bernie Sanders, and his fellow leftwing Marxists.
The term in modern politics is being used in a manner similar to “fascist,” “NAZI,” “rightwing extremist,” and “white supremacist” – incorrectly and for the purpose of trying to soil political opponents by using one of the oldest tactics in the political playbook: Mud Slinging.
What is even more curious and deceptive about the use of the term “oligarchy” when referring to President Donald Trump and the people he has around him is that the Democratic Party’s anti-oligarchy stance using the “billionaires are oligarchs” definition makes no sense. If one takes a magnifying glass to the Democratic Party and truly examine who they are, you will find that the Democratic Party is the party of the wealthy class. They are the billionaires’ club and they are, at the moment, screaming “oligarchy” at billionaires who have simply said goodbye to the Democratic Party. As Victor Davis Hanson said recently, “Democrats don’t hate billionaires, they just hate the ones they no longer control and who are no longer on their side.”
“They don’t tolerate apostates”
“They use this term to castigate the relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.”
“The ten wealthiest people in the US until recently were all lavish donors for the Democrats….So why are they so angry at the “oligarchs” when they were synonymous with Democrats?”
“They don’t tolerate apostates, so they are angry. They are angry they don’t have a lock on the oligarchs.”
“They demand absolute loyalty…any defections or apostates causes them to go ballistic…that anyone would doubt their ability to control big money in the United States.”
So much for the party of tolerance, and the party of the working class and downtrodden.
To get back to the original discussion, an oligarchy is “rule over the many by the few.” A dictatorship. Authoritarian rule, of which Trump has also been accused of being by the Democrats and their leftwing allies.
The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines a political dictator as “one invested with absolute authority” and “invested with unlimited power.”
The 1785 Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary defines a dictator as being “invested in absolute authority” and “one whose credit or authority enables him to direct the conduct or opinion of others.”
Dictionary dot com defines a dictator as “a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.”
So, according to the Democrats and their allies Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and the rest of the current gang in Washington are a part of an oligarchy, and President Trump is an authoritarian dictator.
Let’s examine his actions that might apply (or not apply) to the definitions of these accusations:
- Donald Trump is working to shut down the Department of Education and other federal departments he deems excessive, wasteful and unconstitutional – essentially relinquishing the power related to those departments back to the States.
- Donald Trump is working to shut down wasteful federal spending.
- Donald Trump is relaxing federal regulations across the board, including regarding energy production in the United States so that private entities may better be able to “drill baby drill.”
- Donald Trump is working to reduce the size of federal agencies by laying-off federal workers he believes are excessive or unneeded.
- Donald Trump is working to reduce the power and scope of federal departments.
- Donald Trump is working to reduce taxes on all Americans, and even eliminate certain taxes.
- Donald Trump is working to encourage the free market by reducing federal regulations so that the private sector may operate more independently, without government control, and so that it might be able to expand and innovate without government interference.
- Donald Trump is releasing federal control from Artificial Intelligence so that the technology may “freely develop.”
- Donald Trump is seeking to eliminate DEI and WOKE policies which suppresses the equal treatment of all Americans under the law and uses coercion to make sure progressive policies are put into place. The elimination of these federal policies will also ensure that the government is not participating in a method that aims to direct the conduct or opinion of the public square through coercive ideological policies.
- Donald Trump encourages popular participation in politics.
- Donald Trump donates his presidential salary to charity, and Elon Musk is auditing federal spending without being compensated for his activities.
- Donald Trump is eliminating the “all-electric” mandate believing that when it comes to vehicles or one’s cooking stove, Americans should have the choice on whether or not to use electric or gas.
If an authoritarian regime seeks to consolidate power so that they may have sweeping authority, and they use that power to rule over the many, and Donald Trump is an authoritarian dictator, then why would he seek to reduce the size of government and take power away from the federal government by sending many of its powers back to the States? If President Trump was an authoritarian seeking to increase his power, why would he be seeking to reduce federal spending and encourage innovation and expansion within the private sector by reducing federal control over their activities? If President Trump was seeking to be an authoritarian why would he reduce the size of the federal workforce, numbers one might argue that would be needed to maintain such an authoritarian dictatorship? If he was seeking more control over Americans, why would he seek to reduce taxes, reduce spending, reduce the size of federal departments and agencies, and call for emerging technologies to freely develop without heavy regulation by his federal bureaucrats? If Donald Trump and Elon Musk were oligarchs seeking more power and to enrich themselves then why is it that both of them are operating in the federal government without pay?
It was the Democrats mandating electric vehicles, thus taking away one’s choice on which type of product to own. It was the Democrats who outlawed incandescent light bulbs and increased regulations so that a choice in the ability to purchase certain products was taken away. It was the Democrats, going all the way back to Obama, who sought to use federal authority to control the healthcare industry. It is the Democrats who are working to make sure children’s decisions in the public schools are hidden from the parents. It has been the Democrats who have been trying to use federal power to control the means of production and business operations in the United States – you know, like communists, fascists, and other forms of oligarchy.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Trump national security team, since they were not able to all be in the same room at the same time, used the Signal messaging app to discuss different national security issues in a general manner (Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called it an “update”), including an upcoming volley of strikes against the Houthi terrorist group in Yemen without actually stating the details of the operation. During the March 13 group text meeting the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, was erroneously added to the group chat. Goldberg is a known hard-left Trump-hater, and a pathological false-reporter who is known to distort facts for the purpose of supporting his ideology’s interests.
Goldberg is the journalist who lied about the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” that was used as one of the excuses to go into Iraq. He is the journalist who has consistently cast President Trump as an “existential threat to our democracy.” He is among those who states that the Trump presidency has brought upon America a “Constitutional Crisis.” He has called President Trump an “authoritarian,” and in 2016 while endorsing Hillary Clinton he asserted that Donald Trump is “the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency.” He is the journalist who lied about President Trump’s 2018 Normandy visit, stating the President dismissed the American soldiers who died storming the beaches on D-Day were “suckers” and “losers.” Goldberg also helped spread the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax. His wife, Pamela Ress Reeves, is an international development and policy strategist and a major donor to the Democratic Party, as well as the consulting senior advisor for gender strategy to the executive office of Melina Gates (wife of billionaire and depopulationist Bill Gates).
Two days after the Signal messaging app meeting, U.S. forces began a series of airstrikes and missile attacks against Yemen’s Houthis. The operation was successful. In fact, it was a huge success. Airstrikes against the terrorist group has been used on many occasions since the militant group began targeting commercial and military vessels in the Red Sea in November of 2023.
The use of the Signal messaging app began during the Biden-Harris administration. Top intelligence officials at the time encouraged staffers to utilize Signal because the communications app is encrypted and it would be more difficult for foreign intelligence services to intercept the conversations. When the Trump administration took over in 2025 they were encouraged to also rely on services like Signal because of its ability to provide “end-to-end encryption” when meeting together in a secure room, or discussing matters on a secure line is not possible.
On March 24, in an article in The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he had been in on the Signal chat on March 13 and he alleged that Trump’s team described the timing, targets, and specific weapons to be used in the renewed strikes on Yemen. He also alleged that a CIA employee’s name was revealed in the exchange.
Democrats slammed Trump’s administration for “texting war plans,” and allegedly including critically sensitive details in a chat that was not secure. Goldberg insists that the details shared in the chat were of such a sensitive nature that he chose not to publish them for fear of compromising American military personnel.
Congress began to investigate, questioning the personnel involved. All of the personnel insisted that no confidential information was discussed on the chat.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on X stated: “The Atlantic released the so-called “war plans” and those “plans” include: No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods. And no classified information. Those are some really s***** war plans. This only proves one thing: Jeff Goldberg has never seen a war plan or an “attack plan” (as he now calls it). Not even close. As I type this, my team and I are travelling the INDOPACOM region, meeting w/ Commanders (the guys who make REAL “war plans”) and talking to troops. We will continue to do our job, while the media does what it does best: peddle hoaxes.”
During the grilling by Congressmen the Democrats claimed that merely identifying the weapons involved was a betrayal of American security and intelligence.
When I was in the United States Navy my first ship was the USS Chandler (DDG-996), a Kidd-class guided missile destroyer and even though I was a Personnelman the office was jam-packed with sailors the same rate as myself so I was sent to the Deck Department and after doing the obligatory messdeck duties of all new sailors, I got to work with the Deck Apes doing things like underway watches and so forth. During general quarters I worked with the Damage Control Officer in Damage Control Central. When I went home on leave and my folks asked about what I was doing, I told them my duties onboard ship, and I talked about the Chandler. It was, after all, at the time one of the top ships in terms of technology. And, I told them about the weapons systems.
- Missile Launchers: Two Mark 26 launchers for RIM-66 Standard missiles and two Mark 141 quad launchers for RGM-84 Harpoon missiles.
- Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS): Two Mark 15 Phalanx 20 mm CIWS for defense against incoming threats.
- Naval Guns: Two Mark 45 5-inch/54 caliber guns.
- Torpedoes: Two Mark 32 triple tube mounts for Mark 46 torpedoes.
- Aircraft: The ship was capable of carrying one SH-3 Sea King or two SH-2 Seasprite helicopters.
The ship was commissioned in 1982 and I joined it in January of 1985, which means it was still a very new vessel when I came aboard. It served until 1999, after which it was sold to Taiwan and to this day it is still in service as ROCS Ma Kong (DDG-1805) as a member of Taiwan’s naval forces since 2006.
My second ship, the USS Peoria (LST-1183) was not equipped with such an array of weapons. It had:
- Naval Guns: Two twin 3″/50 caliber dual-purpose gun mounts.
- Two 25mm chain guns, six .50 caliber machine guns, and one 20mm Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS).
- Aviation Facilities: A helicopter deck capable of accommodating most Navy helicopter types.
While I did not participate in underway watches the way I did on the Chandler, I was on the flight deck for flight ops and I got to participate in amphib ops with U.S. Marines. The ship was over 35 years old when I joined its crew, and it was decommissioned in 1994 less than a decade after I was discharged, and it was then used for target practice in 2004 after which it was sunk as a target.
During those conversations I was not betraying my Top Secret classification. Why? The information was not only public information, but the few things that were not were not technically classified. It was okay if I discussed what weapons systems we had, what my responsibilities during various operations were, or when we were going on deployment. And if some lefty overheard me because he somehow lied his way into the conversation, I didn’t need to be fired for my discussions.
Secretary Hegseth nailed it. Any discussions about the weapons available to the United States to use, or that an operation was getting ready to happen was not a betrayal of American security or intelligence. No names, no targets, no locations and no details were stated. This is simply the leftwing Democrats searching for a scandal because they hate President Trump and any of his supporters or personnel and now the judicial case is headed to court…and the judge getting the case? Judge Boasberg, the same activist judge trying to block President Trump’s deportation orders and the same one behind the whole FISA garbage regarding the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax.
There was no classified information transmitted, no war plans provided, and as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated, it was “sensationalist spin.”
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary