Liberalism is incompatible with Christianity

posted by Kevin Finn at American Thinker 

Government is an unfortunate necessity. We need it to do that which we cannot do for ourselves. Its functions are listed in the preamble to the Constitution -- to preserve the union of states, to protect the innocent and prosecute the guilty, to enable its citizens to live in peace and to protect them from foreign or domestic threats, to provide them with the opportunity to prosper and to protect the tenets of liberty for its citizens and their descendants.

One would think that the two main political parties in the U.S. would both aim towards the same goals even though they might differ in their preferred means of achieving them. That no longer appears to be the case. As they are currently constituted, neither party seems overly concerned with protecting our rights and limiting the size of government. One party is actively working to make the country and the citizens less safe, less prosperous, and more divided while the other party talks a good game but rarely follows through.

Christians have a duty to "render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar." that is, to obey and support lawful government. We also have a duty to form and inform our conscience, not to obey unlawful orders, and to "teach and admonish one another" when necessary. Sadly, there are liberals in the public arena who are doing the opposite, causing scandal by leading others astray. This may have eternal consequences.

One such scandal that never seems to go away is that of abortion. The Church has opposed this from her beginnings. In the book of Exodus we see, “When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life..." The meaning is clear. Justice is meted out to anyone who causes harm to a pregnant woman and the unborn.

In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors... I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being." Leftists sometimes obfuscate the issue by claiming the unborn are not ‘persons’ while the reality is that they are human beings at particular stage of development. The question is, “Do all human being have human rights”?

Just as support for abortion is incompatible with Christianity, so is transgenderism. While this is a recent phenomenon the Church's teaching on the subject is, like abortion, based on biblical truths. Genesis teaches: "So God created man in his own image… male and female he created them." We are made in God’s image as to our soul but replicating our physical bodies require procreation, which is why God created two sexes. In 1905 Dr. Nettie Stevens, a cytogeneticist and researcher at Bryn Mawr College discovered that sex is determined by hereditary traits passed through chromosomes.

When someone says they "feel" as though they're the opposite sex they're expressing an emotion which is unrelated to their physical being. Ingesting hormones and undergoing surgery to change outward physical characteristics does nothing to alter an individual's genetic makeup. Transgenderism is not unlike Body Integrity Identity Disorder. In both cases the individual wishes to rid himself of healthy body parts because he does not believe they conform to his identity. Individuals suffering from these conditions would be better served by mental health professionals rather than endocrinologists and plastic surgeons.

Another essential component of liberalism is unfettered immigration. St. Thomas Aquinas wrote eloquently on the topic in the 13th century. He said that immigrants may be peaceful or hostile, and that the latter may be excluded. He also observed that some foreigners merely pass through, some stay as visitors while others wish to settle permanently, and that those who settle should not be granted citizenship immediately as the integration process takes time. The delay is necessary because, as he says, "...the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people.” 250,000 British children have discovered this to their sorrow.

In a June 2024 The Economist/YouGov conducted a poll among 1600 U.S. adults in which immigration took second place behind inflation. With good reason. The names Rachel Morin, Laken Riley, and Jocelyn Nungaray echo in the public consciousness. Debrina Kawam’s name is less well-known but the images of her immolation on a NY subway will haunt this writer for a long time.  

Archbishop Robert McElroy, who was recently appointed to Washington, D.C. by Pope Francis declared that while a nation has the right to secure its borders, “wider indiscriminate massive deportations are incompatible with Catholic doctrine” as they would “violate the dignity of individuals.” Perhaps the Archbishop doesn’t follow the news, or maybe he’s been listening to Brian Stelter and Joy Reid (which is the same as not following the news) rather than Tom Homan.

When he was questioned on his deportation plans in a "60 Minutes" interview Homan replied, “Well, lemme tell you what it's not going to be first. It's not gonna be -- a mass sweep of neighborhoods. It's not gonna be building concentration camps. They'll be targeted arrests. We'll know who we're going to arrest, where we're most likely to find 'em based on numerous… investigative processes.” That’s hardly “indiscriminate.”

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who served as Apostolic Nuncio (Ambassador) to the United States from 2011 to 2016 quickly tendered a reply to Archbishop McElroy on ‘X’, “The 'mass deportation' of illegal immigrants is a decision that the State can legitimately take, and this is a principle dictated by Natural Law even before positive civil law or Canon Law... [It] is certainly and unquestionably incompatible with the subversive plan of ethnic substitution shared by the globalist elite, because it thwarts it and prevents the creation of the premises for social revolt that are intended to lead to a further restriction of fundamental freedoms."

There are obviously other concerning issues besides abortion, transgenderism, and illegal immigration. Radicalized, left-wing governments that espouse them are collapsing at local, state, federal, and international levels and it’s causing great misery. People are suffering from natural disasters and incompetent government policies and responses in Lahaina, Los Angeles, North Carolina, and the surrounding states, to name a few.

In order for something to be good it must attain its designed purpose. Governments are instituted to protect their citizens and create conditions under which they may flourish. Governments abrogate their responsibilities when they pursue courses that not only fail in those aims but endanger and impoverish their citizens.

This past November, Americans embarked once again on the path suggested to us by our Founding Fathers  “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations… evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

It is to be hoped that the new administration will be one that Christians can wholeheartedly support.

On the Fringe and Badlands Media- Jan 12

 

Democrats Killed Los Angeles And No One In Power Cares

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

The horror that has hit Los Angeles is something we haven’t seen since Mrs. O’Leary’s cow kicked over that lantern in 1871. Back then, Chicago burned to the ground and roughly 300 people died. That was more than 150 years ago, things were different then, and things are very different now. There is literally zero reason for a repeat, in any respect, of what happened in Chicago, and yet we are getting just that because of the mentality of the radical progressive leftists who’ve run that city for all but 8 of the last 64 years.

The Great Chicago Fire makes sense in a weird way. Wood and brick were the building materials of choice back then, and wood burns like mad. There were no zoning laws to speak of; buildings were clustered together because “traffic” was a bunch of horses stopping for water or a poop. Go to any old town’s “historic district,” and you’ll see what I mean – it is not rare to find “roads” or alleys where you or a friend can touch buildings on both sides of the street.

When fire hit one house, it risked wiping out the block or the section of town for those very reasons. Add in the infancy and luddite nature of the fire fighting profession and technology and it was a recipe for disaster. Almost every major city around back then has some (much smaller) version of the Great Chicago Fire.

But we aren’t living 150 years ago. Los Angeles is not a densely clustered town of swinging-door saloons and rickety wooden buildings; it is heavily regulated (just try to build something there or put a pool in your own backyard, and you’ll find out how heavy-handed a government can be), and sprawling metropolis with millions upon millions of people. There is more money in the greater Los Angeles area than most countries in Africa and South America. 

“Modern” is an understatement to describe LA, or at least describe how it was…how it appeared to be.

It turns out that modern Los Angeles was like so much of the entertainment industry upon which it is built: beautiful and new on the surface but rotting at its core. 

All the modern architecture and “smart homes” wired for the digital age were wiped out by a lack of water – something the ancient Romans mastered with a mortarless aqueduct system 2000 years ago.

California doesn’t lack for water; it lacks the will to move it to where it’s needed. Los Angeles is basically a desert. Irrigation greened it and Hollywood grew it. At a certain point, the progressive left decided to destroy it. 

OK, they didn’t decide to destroy it, the natural result of their policies just do that. 

Rather than put in place whatever is necessary to safeguard the lives and property of its citizens, the Democrats in California were busy congratulating themselves for the configuration of the people they hired to administer the city. 

No one’s skin color, gender or sexuality has ever put out a fire. Yet, you would be hard-pressed to find a story about LA’s Fire Chief prior to the current disaster that was about anything else. She seems to have an impressive resume, but given the way no one talked about it when she got the job, it should be asked if it was the most impressive resume or just impressive enough for a gay woman to satisfy the DEI Gods.

Janisse Quiñones, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, has overseen the failure of the water supply and her incompetent leadership may well be the most responsible aspect of this disaster. She is paid three-quarters of a million dollars per year to…check DEI boxes. The ones she doesn’t personally check are what she sees as her priority in that job. “It's important to me that everything we do is with an equity lens and social justice and making sure that we right the wrongs that we've done in the past,” Quiñones said before her incompetence helped destroy the city.

Mayor Karen Bass was the first black woman to be mayor of Los Angeles. That and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee. But until her inability to do the job cost lives and tens of billions in damages, she was celebrated for existing. That’s what Democrats do – they elevate and celebrate people who exist while ignoring what they do or what they can’t do. 

It’s really easy to be “historic” and congratulate yourself for the unimportance when there is nothing actually important needing to be done. But there is always feces flying toward a fan somewhere, and when they meet you damn well better have someone who knows what they’re doing at the helm, no matter what their configuration happens to be.

The best person for any job may well be a woman, a minority, someone who is gay or whatever, but if your priority is to look like a Benetton ad from the 90s rather than hire the most qualified person for a job, don’t be surprised when things don’t work out the way they should. And it’s much more than a coincidence that none of these “leaders” is remotely conservative, as any conservative would have refused to participate in press coverage about their irrelevant characteristics. Condi Rice doesn’t bill herself as the first black female Secretary of State; liberals do (through clenched teeth, if they acknowledge her at all).

There is no serious argument that Los Angeles has the best, most qualified people in the positions necessary to have prevented this disaster or to have gotten it under control quickly once it started. But they all could serve as grand marshals of various progressive interest group parades. That gets them celebrated, with glowing press coverage…and puts out exactly zero fires. 

Stop Blaming Politicians. L.A. Was Built to Burn.

Blame whoever you want. But the reality is we built a massive civilization where fire is part of the natural habitat.

There’s a common misconception that beneath the asphalt, Los Angeles is a desert. 

It isn’t. It’s grassland. And part of the natural cycle of the grassland ecosystem is fire.

Twenty-seven years ago, Mike Davis wrote Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles and the Imagination of Disaster. 

One of the chapters is titled “The Case for Letting Malibu Burn.” In it, he argued that the area between the beach and the Santa Monica Mountains simply never should have been developed. No matter what measures we take to prevent it, those hills are going to burn, and the houses we erect upon them are only so much kindling.

California’s binary wet/dry seasonal cycle means rain in the winter, which feeds the growth of chaparral and sage in the hills and coastal mountains, followed by dry summer heat, which turns that biomass into fuel for wildfires. In Los Angeles, add to that mix the warm Santa Ana winds, which sweep into the basin of the San Fernando Valley and are then channeled into the canyons of the Santa Monica Mountains, reaching hurricane-level velocities in the process. Then add human settlement, and all of the millions of opportunities it presents to produce a spark. The likelihood of a disaster like this happening is, in Davis’s words, “a statistical certainty.”

Pointing to urban development as the culprit at a time like this feels a lot like blaming the victim. But it’s more honest than the many other culprits being trotted out on social media, like DEI, Gavin Newsom, or Donald Trump. Certainly, there is blame to go around—Mayor Karen Bass shouldn’t have been in Ghana; we need to know why the fire hydrants went dry; climate change exacerbates the natural conditions that produce the wildfires in the first place. But the fundamental engine for these disasters is the simple, physical reality of California, which prevailed before any of us were born: We built a massive civilization in a place where fire is as much a part of the natural habitat as summer rains are in the east.

Anyone who has lived in L.A. for more than a year has experienced either a season of active wildfires or a season of worrying about whether they would come. Joan Didion has written about it. The area around Pacific Palisades, in particular, has been on fire countless times before. There was a huge conflagration in Malibu in 1929. Then 1930 and 1935. Then 1938 and 1943, and so on, averaging two per decade up to the current day.

There’s a reason this happens so much in Los Angeles: It is unique among American cities for the degree to which it directly abuts wild nature. Older cities grew more gradually. Around the urban core of cities like Boston, Atlanta, or St. Louis emerged suburbs, around them exurbs, and around them rural agricultural zones. Only then do you reach wild forests, mountains, or prairies.

Los Angeles grew up in a hurry. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, development occurred so rapidly that urban and suburban density extends unabated all the way up until it collides into wildlands. A long portion of the city’s perimeter is fenced in by the Santa Monica and San Gabriel Mountains. Dense residential neighborhoods and freeways sit directly beneath towering bluffs populated by mountain lions, which occasionally hop the fences of backyard swimming pools to feast on domestic cats and dogs. Where New York has its meticulously designed Central Park, Los Angeles has Griffith Park, a sprawling expanse of wild mountain terrain right in the middle of the city.

These abrupt borders between nature and city are called “wildland-urban interfaces,” and they’re inherently volatile. Man-made sparks from homeless encampments, discarded cigarettes, and downed power lines easily ignite wildfires, while brush fires that start from natural causes like lightning easily make the leap into residential areas and become urban conflagrations.

The pattern of residential development that has yielded these interfaces isn’t limited to Southern California. In 2018, the Camp Fire in Northern California’s rural Butte County started as a human-ignited forest fire, but ended up killing dozens and displacing thousands because towns like Paradise were carved out of the landscape and were edged up directly against the forests.

People should be held accountable for the mistakes they make in forest management, climate emissions, or reckless behavior with flammable objects. But the hazards of California’s built environment are nobody’s fault, or at least no one who is still alive. Many of the state’s wildland-urban interfaces are the result of residential developments that began in the nineteenth century or the first half of the twentieth.

This is the tinderbox we inherited. This will not be the last time we watch it burn.

https://www.thefp.com/p/stop-blaming-politicians-los-angeles-wildires?utm_campaign=email-post&r=rd3ao&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Core and Central: The Surveillance State, FISA and the Value of Liberty

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

There is nothing reconcilable about American Liberty when contrast with a looming surveillance state. There is no facet of American values, the essential core of what we define as Americanism, that can exist without true liberty.

While the Declaration of Independence is long regarded as the greatest written declaration of purpose, the latter created Bill of Rights, the first Ten original amendments to the U.S. Constitution, is just as important. The first declared our intent; the second defined how our founders intended to retain the intent during our collective assembly. Together they outline what set the course to make America great.

We have allowed the foundational intent of both sets of documents to be compromised, because, well, simply we were lazy and complacent. Now we are engaged in a time of great consequence that will determine whether or not the purpose of our assembly can continue.

We are, in factual reality, now deep inside a debate carried out in the world of politics. The stakes have never been higher.

In nine days, President Donald J Trump is scheduled to be sworn in as President of the United States. In my non-pretending world, this is likely to be the last time in our lifetime to drag the conversation of how we define liberty into the American psyche. All of my research in the past two decades indicates this likelihood is not hyperbole. We have one shot at this, and our time is now.

Liberty, the fundamental decision to retain it or lose it, is the context for all other contexts that have preceded it. The principles of liberty that we have defined for generations cannot exist in an American surveillance state. Thus, the secretive courts, the unlawful usurpation of the 4th Amendment, the short-sighted ramifications of the Patriot Act, the weaponization of our federal law enforcement and police agencies, all of it, must be reviewed through this fundamental core issue, Liberty.

I have traveled throughout the East and West to gain perspective on what makes us different, and what I can assert with clarity is that if we lose the Liberty argument, then the ideological representatives behind Barack Obama will have succeeded, the fundamental transformation will be irreversible.

This frames the cornerstone of my viewpoints on all of the characters in politics.  It is not a matter of debate that on these core issues of Liberty and the stopping of the Surveillance State, everything else is a downstream consequence.  The tiered system of constitutional protections for particular categories of personage must be rebuked.  On this matter there cannot be compromise, because every outcome that impedes our way of life is a derivative of this value.

I will oppose all interests who refuse to confront the Surveillance State.  I will draw bold attention to those who are willingly creating it, and I promise you I will call out every operational interest that is willfully blind to its creation.

This is my hill.

Love to all,

Sundance

 

Behind Trump’s Greenland Comment, Years of Concern Over Growing China, Russia Influence

Both the Trump and Biden administrations have warned about rising risks in the Arctic over the last 8 years.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, Google Earth

By Emel Akan | January 10, 2025 Updated:January 10, 2025     WASHINGTON—President-elect Donald Trump’s recent remarks about potentially using military or economic measures to control Greenland have sparked global concerns. While some view his comments as extreme, there is a longstanding consensus within the U.S. national security community that China’s and Russia’s growing influence in the Arctic is worrisome and demands immediate attention.   Trump has made similar statements regarding the Panama Canal, expressing frustration over the growing influence of Chinese state-owned companies in its operations.   “I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said on Jan. 7 when asked if he would rule out using military or economic coercion to control both Greenland and the Panama Canal.   His comments during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort left many reporters puzzled, prompting repeated questions for clarification.   He emphasized that the United States needs both regions for economic and national security reasons.   One of the benefits of Trump’s approach, whether intentional or not, is that it creates public discourse on issues that would typically be handled behind the scenes, Michael Walsh, a U.S. foreign policy expert, told The Epoch Times.   “It stirs discussion and debate. And you’re seeing that right now. You hear people on the metro talking about Greenland and Panama,” Walsh said.   For many, it’s unclear whether Trump intends to use military force or if he’s suggesting it as a negotiation tactic to change the status quo in both regions.   “It could be a negotiating tactic—who knows?” Walsh added.   However, he noted that understanding the context is important for the public to interpret Trump’s remarks.   “One of the problems with this whole narrative that’s happening is that people don’t understand the context. Even most political leaders don’t understand the context,” he said, referring to the rising risks in Greenland, the world’s largest island.   Walsh, who served as an adviser on Asia-Pacific security affairs for President Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, highlighted U.S. concerns about the independence of Greenland and the Faroe Islands—two autonomous territories of Denmark.   While Trump has only mentioned Greenland, the United States has been concerned about both territories, he noted.   During Trump’s first term, the State Department worked to deepen ties with both islands to counter Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. These concerns persisted under Biden, who introduced an Arctic strategy in 2022 to counter growing competition, especially China’s “Polar Silk Road.” Walsh noted that both administrations share similar views on the risks in the region.

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to members of the media during a press conference at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Jan. 7, 2025. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

“There’s not a huge daylight between the two administrations in terms of the assessment that there’s a risk in the region,” Walsh said.   Despite Denmark being a close NATO ally, the United States fears that Denmark’s influence over these islands could fade over time if they move toward independence.   Over the past eight years, risks have grown, partly due to domestic political dynamics in Denmark regarding the islands.   “The U.S. and Denmark have had a long-standing partnership, and it’s worked really well,” Walsh said. “I think that the concern is that they might not be the partner of the United States in Greenland or the Faroe Islands in the future, if they become independent.”   Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said on Jan. 8 that Greenland may become independent, but it’s unlikely to become a U.S. state.   “We fully recognize that Greenland has its own ambitions. If they materialize, Greenland will become independent, though hardly with an ambition to become a federal state in the United States,” Rasmussen said.   On Jan. 8, the government of Greenland also responded to Trump’s comments, stating that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and that its future will be determined by its own people.   However, Greenland expressed interest in strengthening ties with the United States, particularly in economic cooperation, mining, and development of its mineral resources. Greenland also emphasized its commitment to working with the United States and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic, acknowledging the changing political dynamics in the region.   “The Cabinet is looking forward to building relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration,” the statement read.

Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, a U.S. Space Force base located on the northwest coast in Greenland, on Oct. 4, 2023. (Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Competition in the Arctic   China in recent years has been ambitiously developing its commercial and military capabilities in the Arctic. In addition, Russian and Chinese warships are operating together more frequently in the region.   “Greenland is important because the Arctic has become important,” Gordon Chang, political commentator and China expert, told The Epoch Times. “And China and Russia are seeking to control the Arctic.”   The region was crucial during the Cold War because of the strategic sea lanes in the Atlantic, but after the Cold War, people largely forgot about their importance, Chang added.   Warming trends are driving more activity in the Arctic, which could lead to both competition and tension in the region, according to a July report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).   Referencing 2008 estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey, the CSIS report emphasized the region’s vast resources, including nearly 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That represents about 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas.   The Arctic also has trillions of dollars worth of minerals, including silver, copper, gold, nickel, iron ore, and rare earth elements.   In addition, Greenland is home to a large U.S. military base with missile warning and space-surveillance systems.   Chang disagrees with Trump’s suggestion of using military force to take over Greenland, saying there is no justification for that.   He said that while the world isn’t peaceful, with Russia and China already using force, Trump’s comments could encourage more aggression globally.   Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who was tapped to serve as Trump’s national security adviser, defended Trump’s remarks about Greenland.   “This is about critical minerals. This is about natural resources,” he told Fox News on Jan. 8. “The Chinese are now cranking out icebreakers and pushing up there as well. So, it’s oil and gas. It’s our national security.”   Waltz also said that Russia is “trying to become the king of the Arctic,” pointing out that Russia have over 60 icebreakers, while the United States has only two—one of which had to return to home port last summer due to an electrical fire.

The Russian “50 Years of Victory” nuclear-powered icebreaker at the North Pole on Aug.18, 2021. Russia has over 60 icebreakers, while the United States only has two, according to Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.). (Ekaterina Anisimova/AFP via Getty Images)

Biden has remained silent about Trump’s remarks so far.   During a call with reporters on Jan. 8, John Kirby, spokesperson for the National Security Council, declined to comment directly, instead pointing to responses from foreign leaders.   “It would not be appropriate for us to weigh in and cast judgment,” he said, opting for a more measured answer rather than criticizing Trump’s comments about allies.   China’s Dual-Use Infrastructure   During his visit to Capitol Hill on Jan. 8, Trump was again questioned by reporters about the potential use of military force in Greenland. In response, he mentioned a recent trip to Greenland by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.   “We got applause as we landed yesterday,” the president-elect said, describing the reception as “like a love fest.”   Trump Jr. visited Greenland on Jan. 7 for a day trip, reportedly to shoot video content for podcasting.   Trump also reiterated his criticism of the high fees Panama imposes on the United States and its navy, particularly considering that the United States originally constructed the Panama Canal. He also made it clear that he would not allow China to gain control over the strategically important waterway.   Chinese companies, including Landbridge Group and Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings, currently operate terminals at both ends of the canal.   Trump’s comments about the Panama Canal reflect growing concern among U.S. politicians over China’s expanding influence in Latin America. The State Department warned in 2022 that Beijing’s acquisition of technologies, facilities, and infrastructure in Latin America may have dual purposes.

Donald Trump Jr. (2ndR) and conservative activist Charlie Kirk (R) pose for a group photo in Nuuk, Greenland, on Jan. 7, 2025. Trump made a private visit to Greenland, a Danish-owned territory his father, President-elect Donald Trump, has said the United States should acquire for national security purposes and which hopes to one day be independent. (Emil Stach/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images) In July 2022, Gen. Laura Richardson, then-head of the U.S. Southern Command, raised concerns about Chinese state-owned companies operating ports on both sides of the Panama Canal, stating that these facilities could be turned quickly toward military capabilities.   “I think we should be concerned, but this is a global problem,” she said at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.   “This is the same playbook that they’ve used in Africa, Asia, Europe, it’s not new.”   Trump, in recent social media posts, expressed frustration over China’s expanding influence in the canal, despite it having been built by the United States more than 110 years ago at great financial and human cost.   “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal ... always making certain that the United States puts in Billions of Dollars in ’repair‘ money, but will have absolutely nothing to say about ’anything,'” Trump wrote on Dec. 25, referring to the Chinese regime’s heavy influence over the waterway.   In an earlier lengthy post on Dec. 21, Trump said that Panama, not China, should manage the 51-mile waterway.   “I’m very glad that President Trump raised the issue because the Chinese, through various means, have the ability to block the canal in wartime,” Chang said. U.S. soldiers lower the U.S. flag for the last time at Quarry Heights military base in the Panama Canal on Sept. 25, 1997. The Torrijos-Carter Canal treaty, signed in 1977, calls for the end of the U.S. military presence in Panama canal by Dec. 31, 1999. Eliana Aponte/AFP via Getty Images The Panama Canal, which opened in 1914 after a decade of construction led by the United States, was gradually handed back to Panama under a 1977 treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter. In 1999, Panama assumed full control of the canal, which has since become one of the busiest shipping routes in the world, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. On Dec. 31, Panama celebrated the 25th anniversary of the canal’s handover. Under the separate 1977 Neutrality Treaty, Panama and the United States agreed that the waterway would remain permanently neutral, with fair access and tolls for all countries. Hence, any Chinese challenge to this pact may require the United States to employ military force. “Look, the Panama Canal is vital to our country. It’s being operated by China. We gave the Panama Canal to Panama. We didn’t give it to China, and they’ve abused it. They’ve abused that gift,” Trump said during his Jan. 7 press conference. Workers at the base of the foot gate of Gatun Locks during construction of the Panama Canal in Gatun, Panama, circa 1910. Hulton Archive/Getty Images Democratic Criticism During his press conference, Trump also suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico “the Gulf of America,” expressing his frustration with Mexico about migrants. Many Democrats, however, have criticized these comments, dismissing them as distractions. “House Democrats believe that we are not sent to Washington to invade Greenland, rename the Gulf of Mexico, or seize the Panama Canal by force,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said during a press conference on Jan. 8. He said their priority is addressing the rising costs facing American families. In an interview with CNN on the same day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized Trump’s remarks about the Panama Canal and Greenland, arguing that the United States has always respected the sovereignty of other nations. She pointed out that the comments served as a distraction from his controversial nominees, including Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) echoed a similar sentiment, framing Trump’s comments as an attempt to distract from his tax cuts. “Feels pretty simple to me,” he wrote on X on Jan. 7. “He talks about invading Greenland and Panama to distract you and the media from the THEFT that’s about to happen right under your eyes—the giant tax cut for his billionaire and corporate friends, paid for by massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.” U.S. troops move through Panama City on Dec. 20, 1989, after President George Bush ordered U.S. forces to intervene in Panama and apprehend Panama's General Manuel Antonio Noriega. The U.S. Army was to remove Noriega from power and bring him to the Untied States for trial on drug charges. /AFP via Getty Images Previous Military Intervention If Trump chooses to use military force to uphold the neutrality agreement, it would not be the first instance of U.S. intervention in Panama. Retired Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, who is set to serve as Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, said he was an assault brigade commander during the invasion of Panama in 1989 during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. The purpose of the operation was to remove Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega from power. “We actually did take the Panama Canal back in the late 80s during Operation Just Cause, and three weeks later, we gave it back to them,” Kellogg told Fox News on Jan. 8. “I think his point about the Chinese running the canal is a good point,“ Kellogg said. Over 70 percent of the commerce that goes through the canal is American, he said, and ”it is in our vital national interest that that canal stays sovereign.” https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/behind-trumps-greenland-comment-years-of-concern-over-growing-china-russia-influence-5789379?utm_source=PR_article_paid&utm_medium=email&est=FEnyRpmStM9QJmsCyu4cJ%2FX%2FTRdbcFd2Zcp5RAFJbbLBUCY1R0pEeL66OmuS2M4X6Kqm&utm_campaign=pr-2025-01-12-ca