Kerby Anderson
Tariffs are in the news and are being debated between candidates. In the past, tariffs have been used to protect domestic industries and provide an additional source of revenue. The downside of tariffs is that they increase costs for consumers and can lead to retaliation from other countries.
Dominic Pino posted the number 4,392. That is the number of pages in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Before you even get to the first section, there are 900 pages of notes and rules for interpretation.
He explains that once you get into the actual tariffs, you learn how tariffs have been manipulated to favor certain companies and countries and not others. Let’s look, for example, at tariffs on imported meat. The edible part of turkey that is not cut in pieces, frozen, or valued at less than 88 cents per kilogram is taxed at 8.8 cents per kilogram. But if the value is 88 cents or more per kilogram, it is taxed at 10 percent.
If it’s not cut in pieces and is fresh or chilled rather than frozen, then it is taxed at 15 cents per kilogram regardless of valuation. But if you take the time to look at 17 separate trade agreements, you will find cases where the meat is not taxed.
Imported knitted or crocheted fabrics of a width not exceeding 30 centimeters that contain by weight 5 percent or more of elastomeric yarn but no rubber thread and that are made of cotton are taxed at 8.8 percent. Those made of other materials are taxes at 8 percent.
It should be obvious by now that most of these tariffs aren’t listed to protect the consumer but to give one company an advantage in the marketplace.

Kerby Anderson
Imagine being in the Army and watching a presentation about extremism. Up pops a slide with the title “Terrorist Groups” and under it are labels that identify the National Right to Life and anyone with a “Choose Life” license plate as an extremist. Mind you, this slide just followed a slide of the terrorist group ISIS.
This is not the first time we have seen such Army training slides. During the Obama administration, we discussed on my radio program other slides that identified “evangelical Christianity,” Catholicism, and Mormonism as different forms of “religious extremism.”
Danielle Runyan is Senior Counsel and Chair of the Military Practice Group at First Liberty Institute. Her editorial documents what I just discussed and then goes on to explain that this incident at Fort Liberty was not a one-time error. When members of Congress denounced such activity in their letter, the Army response was that the slides were not vetted and implied this was an exception.
Daniele explains that “the repetitive nature of these events in the Army over the past decade, as well as the woke ideology that has plagued our nation and destroyed the careers of thousands of religious servicemembers over the past four years,” make it hard to believe this wasn’t intentional.
She mentions a briefing given to Army personnel at Camp Shelby that identified the American Family Association as a “hate group.” At another briefing, the Defense Equal Opportunity Institute explained that it considered extreme leftist organizations to be a reliable source for training.
If the Army wonders why they are having trouble recruiting Christians to serve in the military, they might want to look at what they are teaching in these training sessions.