The Address to Congress

On Tuesday, President Trump addressed a joint session of Congress, an event that was met with outstanding reactions from the public and boos and hisses from the mean-girl Democrats. The full video of the address is available below.

https://youtu.be/cR5Dmj6GK88

During the session, many Democratic lawmakers displayed signs and mini whiteboards expressing their dissent. Frankly, they looked juvenile. Representative Al Green from Texas’s 9th Congressional District was removed from the session by the Sergeant at Arms due to his behavior, as instructed by Speaker Johnson. Discussions are occurring among House members about potentially removing Representative Green from his committee assignments and formally censuring him. The Freedom Caucus has expressed that they believe censure is not a sufficient punishment.

This is a going to turn into a FAFO moment for Rep. Al Green.

During the session, several official guests were introduced. Among them was a child cancer survivor from Representative Al Green’s district, who was made an honorary Secret Service agent. The young man’s reaction was one of pure joy. Other guests included a female athlete who suffered brain damage while competing against a tranny, and the parents of victims of serious crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Throughout, the snarky and hissing snake pit of Democrats refused to stand or applaud as they put their vile politics ahead of human decency. The nation watched them and was disgusted.

During his address, President Trump outlined his intention to impose tariffs on nations that do not take significant measures to curb fentanyl smuggling. Following this announcement, Mexico agreed to enhance its efforts in this area and the tariffs on Mexican goods have been rolled back for thirty days. Trust but verify.

In Canada, where an election is imminent, the political landscape is heating up. The liberal faction is intensifying its campaign against Trump, possibly in an attempt to undermine the conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre. The Canadian strategy is to deny the existence of a fentanyl problem and possibly terminate the sale of electricity from Ontario Hydro to the Northeastern and Midwestern American grids.

According to Electric Power Monthly, the USA continues to reduce the consumption of Canadian electric power, especially power generated by Ontario Hydro.

Here is the source document: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_7_01

Should Canada turn off the juice, then the idle coal stations along the Ohio and Monongahela Rivers will likely be restarted. This sounds like a win to me.

********

Comparitive Advantage

The fundamental reasoning behind Trump’s tariffs questions the validity of economist David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, a cornerstone of globalism. This theory, developed in a time when tangible goods were the primary source of value, fails to account for the modern economy’s heavy reliance on information and intellectual property. Consequently, it doesn’t accommodate for issues like intellectual property theft, challenging the notion that one country can invent while another manufactures. The tariffs suggest a need for a reassessment of these economic principles in light of today’s knowledge-based economy.

A significant portion of the world has embraced the globalist theory of comparative advantage, as proposed by David Ricardo. This has led to China becoming a manufacturing powerhouse, largely fueled by intellectual property theft. On the other hand, Russia, primarily known for its vast energy resources, has not demonstrated significant competency in areas such as artificial intelligence and modern computer chip technology. This is exemplified by the discovery of Western and Taiwanese computer chips in Russian drones collected from Ukrainian battlefields, indicating that chips from mainland China lack the necessary speed for autonomous flight.

As the United States moves away from Ricardo’s theories, countries like China, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, and others are left with substantial sunk costs and considerably smaller markets. This shift could prompt these nations to reassess their economic strategies and potentially adapt to the changing dynamics of the global economy.

********

Speaking of China

Jack Wheeler often highlights China’s interest in Siberia, a concern that has recently gained more attention due to certain actions taken by China. Moscow’s strategy of conscripting soldiers from small Siberian villages and deploying them to the front lines in Ukraine, where they typically face high mortality rates, further exacerbates the situation. This not only depletes the already sparse population of Siberia, but also stokes long-standing Russian fears of losing control over the region and its valuable resources, a concern that dates back to the era of the Tsars. These developments suggest a potential shift in regional power dynamics, with China possibly seeking to capitalize on Russia’s vulnerabilities in Siberia.

Russia’s transportation network is predominantly centered around its railway system, strategically designed to link Siberia to the central hub of Moscow. However, the internal infrastructure within Siberia remains underdeveloped, a calculated move intended to hinder the emergence of breakaway republics and their ability to form and maintain independent militias.

This hub-and-spoke model, with Moscow at the center, has historical roots tracing back to the locations of old fur trading forts, around which many Siberian villages eventually developed. The Russian conquest of Siberia was marked by brutality, imposing severe taxes on the native people that could only be paid with furs.

Interestingly, the native Russians seem less tolerant of the bitter cold compared to the indigenous Siberian people. Russia’s primary concern has been to prevent the unification of these indigenous groups, a task made more challenging by the strained relations between them and Moscow, exacerbated by the disproportionate conscription of Siberian men.

On the other side of the border, China faces the opposite situation, with a rich population but a scarcity of resources, in stark contrast to Siberia’s resource-rich but sparsely populated landscape. Russia, grappling with a demographic crisis, has been aggressively blocking Chinese immigration into Siberia to prevent cultural conquest by China.

Despite this, Russian employers often hire illegal Chinese labor, mirroring the way many Californians support human trafficking, and a vast underground labor economy. This complex interplay of historical, demographic, and economic factors continues to shape the dynamics between Russia, Siberia, and China.

China recently took control of Bolshoi Ussuriysky Island, a strategic location at the confluence of two navigable rivers, which had previously been a diplomatic demilitarized zone (DMZ) jointly administered by China and Russia since the Soviet era. Surprisingly, Russia conceded to this takeover, marking a significant shift in the territorial dynamics between the two nations. China released a new map including new names for the Island and rivers, which flow to Vladivostok and the Pacific Ocean.

China’s acquisition of the island allows it to exert significant influence over Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok, while also providing an alternative route to the ocean, bypassing the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan. The rivers in this region are sufficiently large to accommodate a substantial fleet of invasion boats, similar to those reportedly being built in large numbers for a potential invasion of Taiwan. This strategic move enhances China’s ability to project power in the region and could potentially alter the balance of power in East Asia.

China’s approach to territorial expansion, as seen in its recent acquisition, mirrors its previous strategies in the Himalayas and the South China Sea, where it has taken control of disputed areas and redrawn maps to solidify its claims. Historically, nations affected by such land grabs have vehemently objected, often leading to military conflicts.

However, in this instance, Putin has surprisingly chosen not to publicly address or challenge China’s actions, effectively surrendering the territory without resistance. This uncharacteristic response from Russia raises questions about the underlying factors influencing Putin’s decision and the potential implications for future relations between the two countries.

The island in question is not merely a piece of land, but a critical crossroad with significant military implications. China’s historical claims to the region, including Vladivostok and Outer Manchuria, stem from the losses it suffered during the Opium Age, a period known as the Century of Humiliation.

As Russia’s military resources are strained by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, with an estimated arsenal of fewer than 1,800 tanks and an annual production of only 90 new tanks, China has been implementing a long-term, 100-year plan aimed at reversing the effects of the Humiliation and restoring its territorial claims. This strategic context highlights the far-reaching consequences of China’s recent territorial acquisition and its potential impact on the regional balance of power.

China has been openly declaring its intentions to recover Taiwan, making significant investments in building a maritime invasion fleet, training a substantial marine force, and developing tanks, aircraft, drones, and missiles. However, this approach appears to diverge from the military traditions espoused by Sun Tzu, which emphasize the importance of strategic deception and keeping one’s plans hidden from the enemy. The apparent contradiction between China’s public statements and the principles of Sun Tzu raises questions about its true intentions and the potential for misdirection in its military strategy.

Russia currently controls territory that historically belonged to China, while the United States does not hold any former Chinese land. In fact, the U.S. plays a crucial role in maintaining the freedom of navigation in international waters, benefiting Chinese merchants, and is also China’s largest trading partner.

Moreover, the United States continues to grow stronger, while Russia’s global influence appears to be waning, potentially reaching its weakest point in history. Given this context, the optimal time for China to assert its territorial claims would be when conditions are most favorable. This situation presents a significant challenge for Putin and Russia’s strategic interests.

By navigating up the Amur River, China has the potential to divide Outer Manchuria in half and sever the railroad connections with Moscow, effectively isolating Eastern Siberia. This strategic move would significantly alter the regional dynamics and potentially undermine Russia’s control over its eastern territories. It appears that they just took the first step.

********

Nuclear Weapons Upgrade

The United States recently finalized the B61 nuclear weapon refurbishment project, modernizing the electronics, triggers, plutonium pits, and other critical components. This update ensures that the U.S. possesses a reliable and effective nuclear arsenal, in contrast to Russia, which faces questions about the functionality of its nuclear weapons.

Concurrently, the U.S. is upgrading its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) force. Meanwhile, China is rapidly expanding its nuclear missile arsenal and constructing new silos to bolster its strategic deterrence capabilities. These developments underscore the ongoing efforts by major powers to maintain and enhance their nuclear forces in an evolving global security landscape.

Recent reports suggest that China is also developing and expanding its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. These weapons, which typically have a shorter range and lower yield compared to strategic nuclear weapons, are designed for use on the battlefield or for targeting specific military installations. China’s development of tactical nuclear weapons is part of its broader efforts to modernize and strengthen its military capabilities, prompting concerns among Asian nations and Russia about the potential implications for regional security.

*******

Mineral Deals

Given the current geopolitical situation, it is worth considering China’s strategic calculations regarding Taiwan and its broader regional ambitions. Attacking Taiwan would likely provoke a strong response from the United States and its Pacific allies, potentially leading to a devastating conflict that could cripple the global semiconductor industry and reduce Taiwan to a state of prolonged instability, similar to the situation in Gaza.

On the other hand, Russia’s weakening position and its control over historically Chinese territory present an opportunity for China to assert its territorial claims with potentially fewer consequences. By focusing on reclaiming land from Russia, China could avoid confrontation with the U.S. and its allies while still making significant strides in its long-term goal of reversing the Century of Humiliation.

As China continues to build up its military capabilities, including tactical nuclear weapons and strategic missile forces, it is positioning itself to pursue its strategic interests more assertively. The question remains whether China will prioritize reclaiming Taiwan or focus on exploiting Russia’s vulnerabilities to recover lost territories in Siberia and Outer Manchuria. The decision will likely depend on a complex assessment of the potential risks and benefits associated with each course of action, as well as the evolving dynamics of China’s relationships with the United States, Russia, and other regional powers.

Consider the following perspective, and please don’t hesitate to challenge it in the forum: If you were a highly skilled real estate investor aware of Russia’s vulnerability to a hostile takeover of its valuable Siberian property, with the takeover process already underway, what course of action would you pursue?

One option would be to continue supporting Ukraine’s efforts to weaken Russia, thereby enabling China to proceed more rapidly and with fewer obstacles in its pursuit of Siberian territory. Alternatively, you could propose a deal that allows Russia to withdraw from Ukraine and redirect its resources toward defending its eastern territories from potential Chinese encroachment.

This strategic decision would require a careful evaluation of the potential consequences and benefits associated with each approach, considering the complex interplay of interests among the United States, Russia, China, and other regional stakeholders. The ultimate goal would be to identify the course of action that best aligns with your long-term objectives, while minimizing the risks of unintended consequences or escalation of conflicts.

If you were in Putin’s position, considering the current state of affairs, what would be your most strategic move? Russia launched a significant attack against Ukraine this morning, employing up to 70 cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles. This raises questions about Putin’s motivations, and the underlying factors driving this display of force.

One possible explanation is that Putin is attempting to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenskyy into accepting a deal proposed by President Trump. Such a deal could involve Russia ceding occupied territory to a reconstruction zone financed by the potential sale of imaginary rare earth minerals. By agreeing to this arrangement, Russia could avoid sole responsibility for paying reparations to Ukraine from oil sanctions, potentially leading to the lifting of sanctions on various sectors of the Russian economy.

Moreover, ending the war and shifting the global narrative could allow Putin to redeploy the remaining Russian military forces to Siberia, where they could be better positioned to defend against potential Chinese encroachment. This move would also enable Putin to save face domestically and internationally, despite the challenges faced by Russia in Ukraine.

Ultimately, Putin’s decision-making process would involve weighing the potential benefits of ending the conflict against the risks of continued military engagement and the potential loss of territory to China in the east. The complex interplay of these factors, along with the broader geopolitical context, is what is in play.

********

President Trump—My Take

It is widely acknowledged that Donald Trump embodies the characteristics of an alpha male. His significant achievements in business and his marriage to a woman considered by many to be a “10” in terms of attractiveness and social skill are often cited as evidence of his alpha status. Trump’s charismatic personality, and his tendency to assert dominance over those he perceives as lesser males, are also notable traits. In contemporary society, the prevalence of true alpha males seems to have diminished, and the inclination to assert dominance over perceived inferiors appears to be less common among men in general.

Donald Trump is known for his strong emotions, particularly when interacting with individuals he perceives as inauthentic. He appears to have a genuine affinity for everyday working people, including laborers, soldiers, small business owners, and aspiring athletes. However, he has expressed disdain for those he considers inauthentic, such as transgender athletes who have caused severe, life-altering injuries to female competitors. In a recent move, Trump designated March as Women’s History Month and is reportedly considering changing June from the rainbow month to Veterans’ History Month.

Now, I know some Fortune 100 CEOs and even a few billionaires well enough to know that they do not put up with impudence and public disrespect.

As George Patton said, “I wouldn’t give a hoot in Hell for a man that lost and laughed, Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.” I heard this type of sentiment nearly every day as a kid growing up on military bases. I hear it on construction sites when we are trying to bring a job in on time, and I hear it in industrial plants when the men are exhausted, but the work is not done. Furthermore, I especially hear it in mines, where people honestly come to work to move mountains.

Focus on signal, not noise

When JD Vance engaged in a confrontation with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, Vance may have had prior knowledge of Zelenskyy’s agreement with the Democratic Party to create a spectacle and portray a tough image during his visit to the Oval Office. From my perspective, it appeared that Trump was attentively listening to both Zelenskyy and Vance as they presented their respective justifications, before Trump dropping the hammer.

Vance: “It is your fault”

Zelenskyy: “It is your fault”

Vance: “No its your fault”

Zelenskyy: “No, its your fault”

Trump: “Knock it off and get the Hell out of my house”

The message? Don’t bull sh**t the president. He won’t put up with it.

Donald Trump has demonstrated exceptional prowess in creating awe-inspiring architectural marvels, even in the face of the most daunting regulatory hurdles and labor union challenges across the globe. His remarkable success in these ventures is a testament to his unwavering determination and assertive leadership style.

Drawing from my personal experience with heavy construction executives and industrialists, I can confidently say that Trump’s approach is right in line with most heavy industry CEOs. When faced with people blowing smoke, these leaders, like Trump, confront the situation head-on. They do it with thunder, and they do it with lightening.

Mike Ryan is a chemical engineering consultant to heavy industry.