“I think all the world would gain by setting commerce at perfect liberty.” —Thomas Jefferson (1785)

This included reinstating the name “Mount McKinley” to the highest peak in North America, Alaska’s Denali.

In 2015, 40 years after the state of Alaska had restored the mountain’s native name, the Department of the Interior did the same. Nobody in Alaska wanted the name restored to McKinley, so why did Trump include this among his first actions?

Short answer: His admiration for McKinley’s Tariff Act of 1890, intended to protect domestic markets and workers by leveraging an average duty increase on imports from 38% to almost 50%.

McKinley would later revise his stance and advocate for more tariff-free international trade, which is not inconsistent with what Trump ultimately seeks — a level playing field.

Thus, as he said he would, Trump ordered tariffs on imported goods from every country that imposes tariffs and/or other trade barriers on U.S. exports — and some that don’t.

The most noticeable impact of those tariffs has been in the equity and bond markets – a barometer for economic outlook.

If you are fortunate enough to have accumulated some investments or retirement assets, the prospect of tariffs has taken a heavy toll on those assets — for the moment anyway.

As of the close yesterday, the Dow was down 11.51% year-to-date, while 10-year Treasury yields were back above 4%.

But that is about to change. Today, and likely for the rest of this week, expect major equity market recoveries because, after firing a loud shot across the bow of those subjected to last night’s global implementation of his tariffs, Trump has proven once again that the strategic “art of the deal” often depends on being unpredictable — the art of “organized chaos.”

When Donald Trump announced his intention to “take back” the Panama Canal from China, I had to chuckle. My old friend Linc, who had died in 2005, was having the last laugh after all.

As editor of the Daily Inter Lake newspaper in Kalispell, Montana, for 18 years, I got to meet hundreds of people whom I would never have come across otherwise when they came to visit me at my office. One of the most memorable was an octogenarian named Linc France.

Linc (short for Lincoln) was an American original. For decades he had run Linc’s Automotive in Columbia Falls. His 2005 obituary noted that “He could fix anything. If he didn’t have the tool, he could make one.”

Despite ending his formal education in the 8th grade to help support his family, Linc was knowledgeable about many topics and was also civic minded, having served on the Columbia Falls City Council and volunteered for various charities such as Meals on Wheels.

When Linc came to visit me in his blue jeans and flannels with a trucker cap above his piercing eyes, I would sit back in my chair and prepare to be both amused and challenged.

Generally, he would be dropping off a hand-written letter to the editor, and he would ask me to give it a once-over. Most of the time, the letter was about the Panama Canal.

President Jimmy Carter had signed the canal over to the nation of Panama for the contractual obligation of a single dollar back in 1977, and Panama took full control on Dec. 31, 1999, but by then most Americans weren’t interested.

On Feb. 28, 2003, Linc wrote a letter we titled “Canal could be sign of worse to come.” It was indeed prophetic:

For decades, Americans have been led to believe that our legal system is built on principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law.

But that’s not the truth. The truth is very ugly.

The judicial system we have today has been hijacked—weaponized against the very people it was meant to protect. And at the core of this corruption?

The American Bar Association (ABA) and the entire legal cartel that controls our courts.

The ABA is not a neutral, apolitical institution.

It is a radicalized, ideologically captured organization that wields enormous influence over judicial nominations, legal education, and the entire practice of law.

Republican senators, including Eric Schmitt, Ted Cruz, Marsha Blackburn, Josh Hawley, Bernie Moreno, and Mike Lee, have now called for President Trump to remove the ABA from the judicial nomination process entirely.

That’s a step in the right direction—but let’s be honest: removing the ABA from judicial nominations isn’t enough.

The bar itself must be abolished.

The Bar Controls the judiciary—and that’s the problem.

The entire legal profession operates as an exclusive club, one that exists not to protect individual rights, but to maintain power.

Lawyers and judges are trained by the same corrupt institutions, taught the same convoluted statutes, and conditioned to believe they serve “justice” when, in reality, they serve a bloated, bureaucratic system designed to suppress liberty.

It’s not a justice system—it’s a control system.

“We should replace our piece of crap Constitution.”

Those words from author Elie Mystal, a regular commentator on MSNBC, are hardly surprising from someone who previously called the Constitution “trash” and urged not just the abolition of the U.S. Senate but also of “all voter registration laws.”

But Mystal’s radical rhetoric is becoming mainstream on the left, as shown by his best-selling books and popular media appearances.

There is a counter-constitutional movement building in law schools and across the country.

And although Mystal has not advocated violence, some on the left are turning to political violence and criminal acts. It is part of the “righteous rage” that many of them see as absolving them from the basic demands not only of civility but of legality.

They are part of a rising class of American Jacobins — bourgeois revolutionaries increasingly prepared to trash everything, from cars to the Constitution.

The Jacobins were a radical group in France that propelled that country into the worst excesses of the French Revolution. They were largely affluent citizens, including journalists, professors, lawyers, and others who shredded existing laws and destroyed property.

It would ultimately lead not only to the blood-soaked “Reign of Terror” but also to the demise of the Jacobins themselves as more radical groups turned against them.

Of course, it is not revolution on the minds of most of these individuals. It is rage.

Sometimes, the military finds ways to give the American taxpayer a bargain.

Precision, for example, can save a few bucks while still allowing the United States military to un-alive bad guys; just ask anyone who is familiar with the careers of Carlos Hathcock or Chris Kyle.

Instead of pouring machine-gun, rifle, and mortar fire down range, they were adept at knocking off bad guys with one .30 caliber round - and the taxpayers saved some money, in addition to which the bad guys became maladjusted at the realization that if they stuck their heads up, the last thing to go through their minds is likely to be 180 grains of America.

Sometimes, we can do it by using lower tech, too.

This brings us to a recent concern expressed by the acting Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral James Kilby, about how expensive the missiles are that we are using to revoke the birth certificates of Houthi rebels in Yemen.

“New acting Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. James Kilby said he regrets the Navy’s reliance on expensive, high-powered missiles to counter the Houthi threat in the Red Sea and pledged to push for cheaper, more efficient solutions.

 

Speaking to reporters at the Sea Air Space conference in National Harbor, Maryland, Kilby said he was "not concerned" about the Navy’s ability to protect its people – such as the 350 sailors aboard the USS Carney missile destroyer – or its ability to safeguard commercial shipping.

 

He is concerned, however, about "not having better ways to more economically attrit the threat." 

Well, here's a notion: