THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOW INTENSITY BULLET: TIME TO DELIST AND DECOUPLE CHINA

 

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LOW INTENSITY BULLET: TIME TO DELIST AND DECOUPLE CHINA 

"War is hell" is famously attributed to American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman. It is not adored but by a few. Yet, a few that resist that it exists trouble those that see the "calm before the storm". The passive make prudent retaliation impossible. There are some that blame the injured party for the cause of war, "they deserved to be victims for the cause of justice." It is no sense in not acknowledging that the war exists. It exists. "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. (Matthew 24:6)" There will be always be combatants in various wars. You have experienced war since childhood in the schoolyard. AI says, "Schoolyard fights are a process that often involves a pre-fight escalation, a physical altercation, and a post-fight disciplinary or restorative process. The pre-fight stage can include verbal insults or a buildup of anger and stress, while the altercation itself is a physical confrontation that schools try to stop with verbal de-escalation and physical intervention from staff. Following a fight, schools have protocols for breaking up the altercation, assessing the situation, and then addressing it through disciplinary measures, like suspension, or restorative practices, which focus on repairing harm and preventing future incidents. " The US and China are at economic war. Economic warfare includes strategies like sanctions, embargoes, and tariffs used to weaken an adversary's economy, as well as direct military actions such as strategic bombing aimed at war production and transportation. Types can be categorized as offensive (designed to weaken the enemy) or defensive (to protect one's own economy). Other forms include capital controls, boycotts, and currency manipulation. America, it's time to pin-up your hair, take off all of the jewelry and rub on some vaseline. It's time to go to war!

The US Department of State reported, "The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) poses the central threat of our times, undermining the stability of the world to serve its own hegemonic ambitions. Despite efforts to defend its malign actions, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the control of the CCP is not a model world citizen." The US and China have a natural loathings based on the principles of capitalism and Marxism. One of the tenets of communism is Marxism. Communist Crimes defines communism as:  "the social formation that was to follow capitalism, was to be built after a violent worldwide revolution starting from the most highly developed capitalist countries. The first requirement of building communism after the revolution was the confiscation of the property of members of the ‘exploitative’ classes and their suppression, deportation, imprisonment and physical destruction, often together with the members of their families. Communist parties did not come to power as a result of the democratic process nor did they succeed in retaining power when democracy was restored. Communism is a political ideology born in the 19th century that set as its objective the building of a classless society in which all means of production and all that is produced is owned in common by all members of society. Private property is replaced by public property. Communism is totalitarian by its nature. Its objective was the subjugation of the whole of society to ideology and the exclusive leadership of the Communist Party." China is organized by the CCP. It believes that its ideology and economy should have dominion over the world. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines capitalism as: "Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit. As Adam Smith, the 18th century philosopher and father of modern economics, said: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Both parties to a voluntary exchange transaction have their own interest in the outcome, but neither can obtain what he or she wants without addressing what the other wants. It is this rational self-interest that can lead to economic prosperity."  The US, since its origins, has had an affinity for "profit and personal property". Thomas  Jefferson wrote, "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association-the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." The Founding Fathers sought not world dominion but nation expansion. The desire to occupy land from “sea to shining sea” which later become known as Manifest Destiny was a concept which was found in many of the colonial charters. Thomas Jefferson wrote, "America, an immense territory, favoured by nature with all advantages of climate, soil, great navigable rivers and lakes, and c., was destined to become a great country, populous and mighty..." The US did not seek imperialism like its mother, Britain, but capitalism, because it is so successful, dominates the world.

Benjamin Franklin viewed trade as a way to increase comfort and wealth, emphasizing industry and frugality through his writings like "Advice to a Young Tradesman". He believed a trade was an "estate" and that free trade was beneficial, famously stating, "no nation was ever ruined by trade". His advice focused on honesty, hard work, and wise use of time and money to build a prosperous life through trade and commerce. As for Alexander Hamilton, the father of American mercantilism, in 1791 he wrote to Jefferson to say, “My commercial system turns very much on giving a free course to trade and cultivating good humour with all the world.” Iain Murray writes, "Conservatives who claim that free trade is antithetical to American history have to explain why the Founders, even including Hamilton at one point, were so much in favor of it." Trade is the American Way,. It is an essential key to our Nation's profitability. Nixon understood that, so much so, he sought to open a closed nation for our prosperity through trade. From February 21 to 28, 1972, President of the United States Richard Nixon visited Beijing, capital of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in the culmination of his administration's efforts to establish relations with the PRC after years of U.S. diplomatic policy that favored the Republic of China in Taiwan. Nixon signaled his interest in improved relations by easing the travel and trade restrictions against China that dated from the Korean War in the early 1950s. The purpose was profit. "Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations... There is no place on this small planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation", said Nixon. Nixon hoped trade would lead to eternal peace. In China, as a result of the rampancy of leftist ideology and the intrigues of the “Gang of Four”, Zhou Enlai and then Deng Xiaoping were under attack for their efforts to rebuild China’s economy.

The Anti-Federalists raised concerns about a powerful central government that could lead to tyranny and the suppression of individual rights. Their arguments, which were published under various pseudonyms, were instrumental in leading to the drafting of the Bill of Rights. From the way that President Donald Trump and MAGA treated, the Anti-Federalists appear right. Let us give some accolades in history to the writers of the opines including Robert Yates ("Brutus"), George Clinton ("Cato"), Samuel Bryan ("Centinel"), and Melancton Smith or Richard Henry Lee ("Federal Farmer"). It takes a boldness and a fierceness of great magnitude to defend an opposition opinion against more regarded persons like the writers of the Federalist Papers like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Their were many opposed to "free trade" with China. CATO reported, "Industry after industry, coddled by government subsidies at home, sought protection from foreign competition. The result was the “new protectionism” of the 1970s and 1980s." The protectionists were rivaled by such intellectuals as economist Milton Friedman, "This is clearly the right course for action on economic grounds. But it is also the only course of action that is in keeping with our political position in the world. We are a great nation, the leader of the free world. Yet we squander our political power to appease the steel, aluminum and washing machine industries! We should instead be setting a standard for the world by practicing the freedom of competition, of trade and of enterprise that we preach." Slowly, US trade's focus on "globalization". Businesses were shipped to China. American jobs were lost and we became more dependent on China for our industrial production and consumer goods. As jobs were lost and factories closed, crime increased and cities became more dependent on government. Subsidies moved from the industries to the individual as the state took greater possession of American lives. In the black community, greater dependence on individual subsidies caused greater dependence on the Democrat Party. "London School of Economics professor Elizabeth O’Brien Ingleson’s new book, Made in China: When US-China Interests Converged to Transform Global Trade, provides helpful insights into the changes that occurred during this decisive decade. Through extensive archival re­search, she recounts how various U.S. policy choices during the 1970s helped open the door to globalization, how Chinese government poli­cies sought to exploit that opening for China’s own economic development, and how U.S. businesses facing this new global incentive structure began to rethink their supply chains," reported by Trevor R. Jones in "From Exports to Imports: How Corporate America Changed Its Views on Trade in the 1970s". This is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton emphasized that the “prosperity of commerce” is the “most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth. America spent decades tearing itself down while building up China.

During his presidency (1993–2001), Bill Clinton shifted U.S. policy toward China from linking trade to human rights to a strategy of "comprehensive engagement" and expanding economic relations. The most significant outcome of this shift was granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) and supporting its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). As he outlined the arguments in favour of the most potentially consequential step toward the integration of China’s economy into the rules-based multilateral system since Jimmy Carter’s normalization of relations with Beijing in 1979, Clinton portrayed the decision, to use a term favoured by the party of the second part, as a “win-win”. “Membership in the W.T.O., of course, will not create a free society in China overnight or guarantee that China will play by global rules,” Clinton said that day. “But over time, I believe it will move China faster and further in the right direction.” Two decades later, China has patently not moved faster and further in the right direction, unless you consider exploiting its own membership to corrupt multilateral institutions from the WTO to the World Health Organization to the United Nations itself  the right direction as opined by the Canadian Politics and Public Policy in "The Tragic Legacy of Bill Clinton’s China Doctrine", We gave China the gun and the bullets and drew the target, telling them, 'Don't shoot'. Our policies of trade over the years has made us both victim and culprit. Per AI, "US-China trade grew from virtually zero in 1970 to over ($2.3) billion in 1979, rapidly accelerating thereafter, particularly after China's opening to market forces. The relationship saw massive growth through the 1980s and 1990s, reaching over ($536) billion in 2012 before China overtook the US as the largest trading nation globally in 2012. More recently, the trade relationship has been characterized by increased tariffs and disputes, though trade volumes remain very high." By July 2025, the US exported $6.53 Billion to China but the China Exports to United States was US$525.65 Billion during 2024. The total 2025 export value from China to the US is not yet finalized, as the year is not over. However, data from the first half of 2025 shows a significant decrease in US imports from China, with some estimates suggesting a substantial drop for the year. For example, one analysis shows China's exports to the US plummeted by (33.1%) in August. Can you say, "trade imbalance" with me?

 Alexander Hamilton said, "Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures." Rep. Dusty Johnson in The Washington Times wrote,"The United States relies on global trade and strong supply chains to meet domestic demand and boost American production, but one nation China has manipulated America’s economy to its advantage, undermining American businesses, consumers, and national security. China exploits loopholes in our trade laws and has attempted to gain a chokehold on American ports and foreign ones like the Panama Canal. Their actions are not an accident, but a deliberate attempt to grow their influence and dominance. The Chinese Communist Party is not our friend." China supplies the US with a wide range of goods, most notably electronics, machinery, and consumer products like furniture and apparel. Other key supplies include toys, games, sports equipment, and plastics. The US also imports some food products from China, such as certain fruits and oils.  Literally, what America used to make for itself, China now does. "On the same day that the Trump administration announced $60 billion in tariffs against China last week, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) dropped the results of its Section 301 investigation into China’s unfair trade practices. The nearly 200-page report presents a searing indictment of China’s disregard for intellectual property, discrimination against foreign firms, and use of preferential industrial policies to unfairly bolster Chinese firms. Interestingly, the report singles out one Chinese government initiative, in particular, as a prime example of Beijing's egregious behavior: Made in China 2025," wrote Lorand Laskai in "Why Does Everyone Hate Made in China 2025?" To prepare for a potential war, civilians should prioritize gathering essential supplies like non-perishable food, water, and a first-aid kit; develop a comprehensive emergency plan including communication and evacuation routes; learn practical survival skills such as water purification and basic medical care; and stay informed about geopolitical events and local risks. Community engagement, financial and legal preparedness, and basic home security also play a vital role in overall readiness. Hopefully, we don't wear our best blouse when we go to war.

Trump says China has ripped off our country for years. President Donald Trump said that tariffs totaling as much as 157% on Chinese imports are "not sustainable" as he prepares to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the coming weeks. Why so high? Trump said he raised tariffs to 100% on top of existing duties after Beijing tightened export controls on rare earth minerals — a move he described as retaliation for China’s economic pressure. "I've always had a great relationship with them, as you know, but they're always looking for an edge," Trump said, adding that China has "ripped off our country for years." Rare earth minerals are a group of 17 metallic elements, including the 15 lanthanides plus scandium and yttrium, that have unique magnetic, electrical, and luminescent properties. While not actually "rare" in the Earth's crust, they are difficult to mine because they are dispersed in low concentrations and are hard to separate from one another. These minerals are crucial for modern technologies like smartphones, electric vehicles, and defense systems. Simply, its time that we as a Nation "grow a pair" and hit them economically. There is a difference between "free trade" and "fair trade". A free trade agreement is an arrangement where two or more countries commit to opening up their markets to one another by lowering or removing tariffs, quotas, and other trade barriers, making it easier for goods and services to move between them. Fair trade is a global movement that promotes equitable trading partnerships, aiming to ensure producers in developing countries receive fair prices for their goods, along with safe working conditions and sustainable livelihoods. It is a system that seeks to correct imbalances in the global market by empowering marginalized communities and providing a better standard of living. Products with a Fair Trade certification have been independently verified to meet specific social, environmental, and economic standards. China is neither "free" nor "fair".

For decades, U.S. trade policy sought to open up China's economy, believing it would support American commercial interests and advance U.S. foreign policy goals. U.S. policies have both promoted and restricted trade with China at various times for economic, diplomatic, and geopolitical reasons. The Lowy Institute for International Policy instructed when to know when you are at war, "Today we are at war. It is real and affects the lives of people worldwide. Many suffer and die as a result of war every day.  Some deny this is genuine war, but for those involved – military and civilian – it is real  enough.  In these circumstances,  the rhetoric  of politicians  is often  confusing  –  they tend variously to pretend we are not at war, avoid discussing the issue, or try to make war out of events that are not warlike.  The old indicators of war are becoming less relevant and it is difficult to recognise the new ones.  New threats and challenges are emerging. It is increasingly likely that the 21 st Century will be one where war is persistent and  pervasive.  Suitable responses  are far from  developed,  and  an effective balance between old and new methods of response is still to be determined." We are in a sophisticated, economic war and our enemy combatant is China. The risks are our prosperity, liberty and economic freedom. Founding Father John Jay, the Supreme Court Justice  Ketanji Brown Jackson should envy, wrote, "The good of the whole can only be promoted by advancing the good of each of the parts or members which compose the whole. It will not be in the power of the President and Senate to make any treaties by which they and their families and estates will not be equally bound and affected with the rest of the community; and, having no private interest distinct from that of the nation, they will be under no temptations to neglect the latter. As to corruption, the case is not supposable. He must either have been very unfortunate in his intercourse with the world, or possess a heart very susceptible of such impressions, who can think it probable that the President and two thirds of the Senate will ever be capable of such unworthy conduct. The idea is too gross and too invidious to be entertained. But in such a case, if it should ever happen the treaty so obtained from us would, like all other fraudulent contracts, be null and void by the laws of nations.” It is the purpose of MAGA America to promote prosperity in a corrupted world.

For China, America designed trade and economic policies for Wall Street. We need to redesign it for Main Street. We need to put two cartridges in the chamber-trade and economic policy-before we launch our campaign on China. We need to delist Chinese companies from Wall Street and we need to decouple trade and our economy from Zhōngguó (中國/中国, central country)." The State Department reasons, "The PRC violates its World Trade Organization commitments and international norms and standards through massive subsidies to favored companies, intellectual property theft, forced tech transfer, and corrupt trade and investment practices. CCP-controlled firms undersell to gain unfair market access. Its One Belt One Road Initiative (BRI or OBOR) preys on other countries via unsustainable and corrupt lending while ignoring global labor and environmental standards. " We need to delist China from Wall Street. Delisting Chinese stocks from U.S. exchanges is a process driven by escalating geopolitical tensions, national security concerns, and long-standing disputes over auditing and transparency. While the threat of forced delistings for non-compliance was temporarily resolved in 2022, the issue has resurfaced, fueled by new regulatory pressures in the U.S.. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced its "America First Investment Policy." The memorandum called for government agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to enforce existing rules and create new rules targeting U.S.-listed Chinese companies. In May 2025, bipartisan groups in the House and Senate sent letters to the SEC urging the delisting of Chinese companies identified as national security or investor risks. In September 2025, Nasdaq announced stricter listing standards to curb market manipulation. It now requires Chinese companies to raise a minimum of $25 million in their public offering to qualify. The rules also introduce a faster delisting process for thinly traded companies. Analysts and lawmakers remain concerned about the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) ability to "completely" inspect Chinese audit firms, even after a 2022 agreement. Winston Ma, a legal professor, indicated in April 2025 that the two-year compliance window under the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA) could trigger delistings by 2026 if regulators act. The Atlantic Council reports, "China’s decision to delist these companies-China Life Insurance Company, PetroChina Company Limited, China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation, Aluminum Corporation of China Limited, and Sinopec Shanghai Petrochemical Company Limited--is motivated by its unwillingness to comply with US regulations; they make up five of the eight NYSE-listed, national, state-owned enterprises (SOE) for which China has resisted sharing auditing review data with the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) on ground of national security. Those five companies raised $7.1 billion, a tiny fraction of their combined market capitalization of $414 billion." Partials only work with dentures. We need a complete delisting. As of October 2025, there are 411 Chinese companies listed on major U.S. stock exchanges, with the Nasdaq hosting the majority. This number is a recent update from earlier in the year, which showed a higher number of listings, and indicates a dynamic market with fluctuations in the number of companies.

 

The next cartridge is decoupling. We need to decouple from China. No, I am not talking about divorcing married persons. The Council on Foreign Relations presented, "In 2024, the total trade value between the U.S. and China was around $583 billion. For decades, China has been a central node in global supply chains and a primary trade partner for the U.S. However, with retaliatory tariffs and the rise of China’s geopolitical and technological influence, concerns have emerged that economic interdependence may be empowering a regime increasingly hostile to U.S. interests. Those in favor of decoupling argue the U.S. must reduce national security threats and make its manufacturing sector less reliant on Chinese supply chains. They also contend that decoupling could also give the U.S. more leverage in addressing China’s military expansion and threats toward Taiwan." Our supply chain deficits are a national security threat, such is our total reliance. China's military expansion puts at risk our dependence for medical supplies and technological production and inventories. If we don't decouple, then the US and Taiwan may be at risk of attack, not just economically but militarily. John Adams wrote, "Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker." . In 1974, Congress passed a new trade law that sought to ensure both that the president had adequate authority to promote U.S. economic interests and that he adopted trade policies in line with congressional priorities. Ingleson presents a stark account of this 1974 bill as an intentional attempt to “curb protectionist demands” by “dilut[ing] Congress’s ability to pro­tect American workers” and handing authority off to the president. Since there is no such thing as a low intensity bullet, change is essential. We need to change.