The highest court in Panama has nulled the ‘Chinese’ contract for the operation of both entrance ports on the Panama Canal.  The Panamanian government took back control and assigned operations to APM Terminals, a subsidiary of the Danish group A.P. Moller-Maersk.

The state takeover comes after a 14-month long saga begun by President Trump who reasserted American interests in the hemisphere and rejected the concept of allowing China to have strategic control over such vital North American infrastructure.

President Trump did not mince words in December of 2024 when he said, “[The Panama Canal] was not given for the benefit of others, but merely as a token of cooperation with us and Panama,” Trump concluded. “If the principles, both moral and legal, of this magnanimous gesture of giving are not followed, then we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question.”  Marco Rubio was then dispatched as an intermediary in Feb 2025.

Then, last month, Panama’s Supreme Court struck down the law approving the concession contract for Panama Ports Company, a subsidiary of CK Hutchison (China/Hong Kong). The court ruling also invalidated an extension granted in 2021, stripping the port operations of any current legal standing.  Now, Panama has taken over.

(MSM) – The government of Panama has seized control of two ports on either end of the Panama Canal from a Hong Kong conglomerate following a recent ruling by the country’s Supreme Court.

Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison said on Tuesday that Panama’s government had “made direct physical entry into the terminals at Balboa and Cristobal” and assumed “administrative and operational control” over the two ports on the Panama Canal.

(more…)

British Member of Parliament (MP) Mr. Rupert Lowe shared a statement on the X platform, written by the Rape Gang Inquiry within the U.K.  What is written about the abuse is horrific.

[SOURCE]

[…] ‘This inquiry is about action. We have gathered evidence, we will listen carefully over the coming two weeks, and we will then act. Our ultimate objective is justice – including the pursuit of private prosecutions where appropriate. Justice for the girls who were abused. Justice for the families who were ignored.

And justice for a country that was repeatedly misled about what was happening in its towns and cities.’ (more)

(more…)

A repost from 2023 by request.

In roughly the past fifty years, the term “continuity of government” has been used with increased frequency describing how the United States of America, a constitutional republican system of government, contains internal mechanisms to protect the executive branch in the event of crisis, attack or disruption of leadership by adversaries.

The term ‘continuity of government‘ became much more common in the aftermath of 9-11-01 and the thunder shock of an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.

Within the very brief discussion period that led up to the 10-26-01 Patriot Act [pdf here], literally a structural reform of the entire domestic terrorist apparatus that created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), a bill only debated for a few weeks, the baseline was the enhanced ‘continuity of government‘ in the event of an emergency.

As we have exhaustively outlined on these pages, the outcome of the Patriot Act was to create a system where every American was now viewed by our federal government through the prism of the citizen being a potential terrorist threat.

The federal government aligned all of our institutions and national security systems accordingly.

DHS was created to monitor American behavior, the TSA was created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite our Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution.  Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats.

In essence, We the People became the suspects, and all of the constitutional viewpoints within the FBI and Dept of Justice were modified to create monitoring systems.

The legislative branch was considered part of a this newly protected elite class of Americans, and the judicial branch deferred all scrutiny to the executive as long as they claimed, ‘national security.’  The secret FISA court system would grant the agents surveillance power over U.S. citizens.

(more…)

According to the Washington DC spin, the various EU energy ministers changed clean energy justification of ‘climate change’ during the International Energy Agency (IEA) summit because they were concerned the U.S. would pull out of the IEA group.  The IEA shifted to green energy as a security priority, no longer concerned with climate change.

However, given the situation with European energy costs and the severe problems they are having within their collective and individual economies, what they consider “national security” appears to be their need to control public outrage at the green energy consequences.

Affordable or ‘cheap’ energy production is directly linked to the underlying economy.  If energy production costs more, heating, electricity, fuel, transportation, just about everything costs more.  Energy prices drive consumer prices and that has become a serious problem for the U.K and EU who have chased the “Build Back Better” global energy reset.

With President Trump targeting reciprocity in a global trade balance, suddenly the economies of Europe, Canada and parts of Asia are feeling the impact.  Industrial manufacturing in Europe continues dropping and various sectors like the automotive manufacturing showcase the contraction.  The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or economic output within each of the contracting nations is putting hard data behind the problem.

Suddenly, with their economies now quivering, the IEA meeting in Europe drops the climate change objective as justification for their ‘renewable’ energy programs.  They blame the USA, but in reality, they appear to be trying to save themselves from feeling the full consequences of their action.

(POLITICO) – […] Ministers, senior officials and ministerial advisers told POLITICO that the event had cemented a long-running rebranding of the green transition that emphasizes the security benefits of renewables rather than their climate-saving potential. It’s a change that has been slowly building since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office 13 months ago, and that was turbocharged by Wright’s threats on Tuesday to quit the IEA and fears Washington might stop funding the body. The U.S. provides around 14 percent of the IEA’s funding.

(more…)

Tucker Carlson interviews U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee against the background of a potential U.S. military operation against Iran. Apparently, Carlson and Huckabee had some public disagreements on the subject of Israel, and this interview came about as Ambassador Huckabee invited Carlson for an interview.

The interview is filled with uncomfortable friction as Carlson asks many questions that come from ongoing reviews of the files of Jeffrey Epstein. Mr Carlson confronts Ambassador Huckabee with his personal opinion that the U.S. Ambassador works for Israel and not the best interests of the United States.

.

(more…)

President Trump reacts to the Supreme Court ruling with much the same perspective of many MAGA supporters.

For most of us the core of MAGA policy surrounds economics; specifically, GDP growth, jobs and wages. Economic security is national security. Immigration enforcement, border security and other priorities come after MAGAnomics.

PRESIDENT TRUMP – “The Supreme Court’s Ruling on TARIFFS is deeply disappointing! I am ashamed of certain Members of the Court for not having the Courage to do what is right for our Country. I would like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for your Strength, Wisdom, and Love of our Country, which is right now very proud of you.

When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them. Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic, and dancing in the streets — But they won’t be dancing for long! The Democrats on the Court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote “NO” against ANYTHING that makes America Strong and Healthy Again. They, also, are a Disgrace to our Nation.

Others think they’re being “politically correct,” which has happened before, far too often, with certain Members of this Court when, in fact, they’re just FOOLS and “LAPDOGS” for the RINOS and Radical Left Democrats and, not that this should have anything to do with it, very unpatriotic, and disloyal to the Constitution. It is my opinion that the Court has been swayed by Foreign Interests, and a Political Movement that is far smaller than people would think — But obnoxious, ignorant, and loud!

This was an important case to me, more as a symbol of Economic and National Security, than anything else. The Good News is that there are methods, practices, Statutes, and other Authorities, as recognized by the entire Court and Congress, that are even stronger than the IEEPA TARIFFS, available to me as President of the United States of America and, in actuality, I was very modest in my “ask” of other Countries and Businesses because I wanted to do nothing that could sway the decision that has been rendered by the Court.

I have very effectively utilized TARIFFS over the past year to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Our Stock Market has just recently broken the 50,000 mark on the DOW and, simultaneously, 7,000 on the S&P, two numbers that everybody thought, upon our Landslide Election Victory, could not be attained until the very end of my Administration — Four years! TARIFFS have, likewise, been used to end five of the eight Wars that I settled, have given us Great National Security and, together with our Strong Border, reduced Fentanyl coming into our Country by 30%, when I use them as a penalty against Countries illegally sending this poison to us. All of those TARIFFS remain, but other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the Court incorrectly rejected.”

(more…)

Speaking to the Economic Club of Dallas, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent outlines what technical procedures the Trump administration will trigger now to retain tariff authority.  As anticipated Bessent outlines section 232 tariffs, section 301 tariffs, and Section 122 tariffs.  WATCH (prompted):

Section 232 [Steel and Aluminum examples] of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (19 U.S.C. §1862, as amended) authorizes the President to impose trade restrictions—such as a tariff or quota—if the Secretary of Commerce determines, following an investigation, that imports of a good “threaten to impair” U.S. national security. {SOURCE}

Section 301 tariffs are a trade enforcement mechanism established under the Trade Act of 1974. They allow the U.S. government to impose tariffs on imports from countries that are found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) conducts investigations to determine if a country is violating trade agreements, and if so, it can impose tariffs as a corrective measure {SOURCE}

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the U.S. president to impose tariffs of up to 15% to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. This authority can be exercised without prior congressional approval for a limited duration of 150 days. After this period, any tariffs must be extended by Congress. {SOURCE}

(more…)

President Donald Trump delivers remarks and holds a media availability following the Supreme Court 6-3 decision on the meaning of the word “regulate.”  WATCH:

.

(more…)

The frustrating issue with the Supreme Court ruling [SEE HERE] is not simply the legal logic applied, which essentially boils down to actionable definitions surrounding the word “regulate,” but also the high court’s seeming blindness to the “emergency” part of the reason IEEPA was used.

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation.  The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.

Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA.  Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.

The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation.

In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs.  This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake.  These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.  Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(more…)

President Trump travels to Rome Georgia today to deliver remarks on the economy from Coosa Steel Corporation. The anticipated start time is 4:00pm ET. Livestream Links Below.

.

(more…)