Matthew Tomlet

THIS TEAM CHANGED PANAMA'S POWER SEAT Prior to Panama's election of Jose Raul Mulino to presidency, the previous administration was beholden to the United Nation NGO's. Thanks to the team at Operation Burning Edge, we assembled an incredible group of truth telling journalists and war correspondents who exposed the reality of the Darien Gap and the levers of power being weaponized by the United Nations. TIME TO DEFUND AND EXIT THE @UN @realDonaldTrump @SecRubio @RealTomHoman Special thanks to: @Michael_Yon @JoshJPhilipp @DarleneEpoch @LauraLoomer @matttomlet @ted_macie @PlayJuliaTS @Oscarelblue

WHY ALL THE FUSS ABOUT THE PANAMA CANAL? Let me introduce you to the Concini Clause - an amendment in the Panama Canal Treaty The Concini Clause refers to a provision that was proposed by Senator Henry Bellmon during the ratification debates of the treaty in the U.S. Senate. This clause aimed to affirm and strengthen U.S. rights to defend the canal after its transfer to Panama. Background of the Panama Canal Treaty: The Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, signed by U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos, was designed to transfer control of the Panama Canal from the United States to Panama by the year 2000. As part of the agreements, the U.S. retained rights to ensure the canal's neutrality and operational security indefinitely. Purpose of the Concini Clause: The amendment sought to clarify and reinforce the United States' ability to intervene militarily if necessary to defend the canal against any threat that might impede its operation or neutrality, even after Panama assumed control. The clause was controversial because: It reaffirmed U.S. interventionist authority, which some saw as contradicting the spirit of sovereignty Panama was supposed to gain. It raised concerns about potential overreach or misinterpretation of the United States' rights. Outcome: The Concini Clause was adopted and became a part of the treaty's ratification process. It emphasized the U.S. commitment to the canal's defense while also highlighting the delicate balance between respecting Panama's sovereignty and securing the canal's strategic importance to global trade and U.S. interests. How does possession is 9/10 of the law play into effect with respect to the panama canal? The phrase "possession is nine-tenths of the law" reflects the idea that ownership is easier to claim and defend if one physically possesses something. It implies that controlling something often equates to effective ownership, even if legal ownership is disputed. In the context of the Panama Canal, this principle played a significant role historically, especially in the debates over sovereignty, control, and legal authority.Historical Context of the Panama Canal: U.S. Construction and Control (1904–1977): The U.S. effectively "possessed" the Panama Canal following its construction, despite the canal being geographically within Panama's territory. The 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty granted the U.S. control over the Canal Zone in perpetuity, which was essentially treated as sovereign U.S. territory for administrative purposes. Challenges to U.S. Possession: Panamanians increasingly opposed U.S. control, arguing that the canal and the surrounding zone were integral to Panama's sovereignty. While the U.S. legally held the right to administer the canal, Panama’s argument for sovereignty gained momentum because the canal was geographically in Panama, and possession without recognition of sovereign rights led to political tension. Application of "Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law": U.S. Military and Administrative Control: The U.S. military presence and administrative governance of the canal allowed it to exercise de facto possession, reinforcing its claim despite rising Panamanian opposition. This possession gave the U.S. significant leverage in treaty negotiations, as Panama could not easily reclaim control without U.S. agreement. Shift in Possession Under the 1977 Panama Canal Treaties: The treaties negotiated by President Jimmy Carter reflected the principle’s inverse. By agreeing to gradually transfer control of the canal to Panama by 2000, the U.S. effectively surrendered its long-standing physical possession. The treaty transfer process symbolized a shift from "possession as power" to mutual agreements recognizing Panama’s sovereignty. Defense Rights Post-Transfer: Even after the transfer, the U.S. retained rights to intervene to defend the canal under certain circumstances, asserting a form of continued influence, if not direct possession. The principle of possession is evident here: whoever controls (or is perceived to control) the canal effectively wields power over its operations and security. Modern Relevance: After the canal's full transfer in 1999, possession has remained with Panama, but strategic interest by major powers (including the U.S. and China) highlights how the principle of possession still plays a role. For example:Panama retains operational control, asserting its sovereignty and economic rights. However, external stakeholders seek influence over the canal's operation and security due to its global importance, indicating that "possession" extends beyond mere physical control to strategic oversight. In summary, "possession is nine-tenths of the law" underscores the historical U.S. control and influence over the canal and its eventual transfer to Panama, showing how physical possession can assert dominance but must eventually reconcile with legal and sovereign claims.

Shocked Jack would post this. This is a damning example of bad information from someone who has NOT been there. Perhaps Jack should read the coverage of the Darien Gap done by .@JoshJPhilipp @DarleneEpoch @LauraLoomer @Oscarelblue @BenBergquam myself and you Michael. The U.S. govt aka American taxpayer is the highest funder of the @UN who intern funds the @UNmigration and many other NGO’s who are working hand in glove to pull through this illegal invasion, and Panama is powerless to stop it. They don’t have the money nor the resources. The Biden administration not only abandoned Panama, they lied to Panama and they used Panama to complete the destruction of our country in terms of illegal invasions. Now we are left with rogue actors in our country. Start with asking @SecMayorkas where all the money went, that was supposed to be supporting Panama in closing the gap and supporting the illegals. This is highly irresponsible reporting or you are being paid by somebody to foment a war with a country that has been an ally to the United States for years. Ask Steve Bannon about the Darien Gap. He knows the truth.