A United Nations proposal would replace the current system of taxing each multinational subsidiary separately with a global unitary tax system. A corporation’s worldwide profits would first be combined into one total and then divided among countries according to a formula measuring where it employs workers and where its customers purchase goods and services. Each country would apply its own corporate tax rate to the portion assigned to it, regardless of where the company legally reported the profit.
Tax Justice Network estimates that this reallocation would produce an additional $500 billion in annual corporate tax revenue worldwide. It would be redistributed among governments, creating major winners while stripping revenue from countries whose economies currently benefit from corporate headquarters, intellectual property, financial services, or low-tax structures.
Ireland would suffer one of the largest losses, surrendering an estimated $11.15 billion annually, or 81.9% of the multinational corporate tax revenue measured by the study. Hong Kong would lose $9.37 billion, or 75.7%; Singapore $8 billion, or 69.2%; Switzerland $5.43 billion, or 42%; the Netherlands $3.16 billion, or 28.4%; and Malta $3.04 billion. Bermuda would lose $489 million, the British Virgin Islands $496 million, Puerto Rico $547 million, Jersey $510 million, and Mauritius $152 million.
These jurisdictions currently tax profits that multinational corporations book within their borders despite having relatively little employment or customer activity there. The UN formula would disregard where those profits are legally reported and redistribute them toward countries where the company’s workers and customers are located.
The UN claims some of these jurisdictions could theoretically recover the lost revenue by taxing their smaller remaining profit base at much higher rates. The study estimates that the Netherlands would need an effective rate of roughly 29% to 33%, compared with its present estimated rate of 13.6%. Switzerland would need approximately 20% to 25%, up from 10.4%, while Singapore would need between 25% and 37%, up from 9.2%.
Those numbers become absurd for economies heavily dependent on profit booking. Ireland would require an effective rate between 68% and 94% to replace the revenue it loses under the various formulas. The Cayman Islands could require between 28% and 162%, while the British Virgin Islands could require anything from 9% to 643%. That is an admission that these jurisdictions could not recover their losses through ordinary taxation without destroying the economic model the UN intends to dismantle.
However, the losers are not limited to traditional tax havens. Japan would lose an estimated $34.09 billion per year, equal to 27.1% of the multinational corporate tax revenue included in the study. Denmark would lose approximately $1.8 billion, or 31.9%, while Saudi Arabia would lose $1.77 billion, or 17.9%.
The report classifies these three as “headquarters-bias” countries. Their multinational corporations report an unusually large share of global profits in the country where the parent company is headquartered, even though much of their employment and sales occurs abroad. Under the UN formula, some of that profit would be exported to foreign governments.
Japan’s result may reflect the concentration of research, intellectual property, engineering, and other high-value functions at Japanese parent companies. Yet the formula gives equal weight to employee headcount and customer location, meaning it may fail to recognize where a product was invented, financed, designed, or developed. A country could spend decades building an advanced industrial and technological base only to be told that much of the resulting profit belongs to whichever foreign country purchased the finished product.
To preserve its existing revenue, Japan would need to increase its effective corporate tax rate from approximately 30.5% to somewhere between 36.3% and 42.6%, depending on the allocation formula. Denmark would need to raise its rate from around 15% to between 25.3% and 38.8%. Saudi Arabia would need to increase its 20% effective rate to between 22.7% and 26%.
Denmark’s projected loss may be influenced by its large shipping industry and tonnage-tax regime. The report notes that $29 billion of A.P. Moller-Maersk’s $30.2 billion in 2022 pretax profit was subject to Danish or foreign tonnage taxation, producing an effective tax rate of only 3%. The proposed formula would allocate more of that profit to countries connected to Maersk’s workers and customers rather than allowing Denmark to retain the advantage of hosting the corporate headquarters.
New Zealand is also projected to lose about $220 million annually, Macao $975 million, Eswatini $22 million, and several smaller island jurisdictions would lose meaningful shares of their present corporate revenue. Some estimates for the smallest jurisdictions are based on thin reporting data and must be treated cautiously, but the direction is clear. This is a redistribution of national taxing rights, not a magical creation of $500 billion from nowhere.
The report attempts to dismiss these losses by telling tax-haven nations to abandon their present economic models, increase their tax rates, invest in education and infrastructure, and diversify into other industries. That is an extraordinary display of bureaucratic arrogance. Unelected organizations are effectively telling sovereign nations that their tax policies, competitive advantages, and development strategies are unacceptable and must be replaced by a model designed in New York.
Globalist institutions do not view countries as independent societies with different resources, cultures, needs, and economic strategies. They view the world as an administrative spreadsheet. If Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, or a small Caribbean nation loses a major source of revenue, that is treated as an acceptable adjustment so long as the global model produces the desired aggregate result.
This is precisely how these organizations operate. The OECD, IMF, European Union, and United Nations always claim that another layer of coordination will produce fairness, stability, and efficiency. What actually appears is another permanent bureaucracy with committees, reporting mandates, enforcement mechanisms, technical standards, review conferences, and dispute panels.
The treaty language proposed by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice would empower a Conference of the Parties to assess the allocation of taxing rights across all forms of taxation with cross-border effects and adopt additional measures it considers appropriate. It also calls for an international system based on consolidated global profits, an agreed allocation formula, regular reviews, sector-specific rules, and an “effective global minimum corporate tax rate.”
The proposal explicitly says the convention should cover “all types of taxes with transboundary effects.” Once established, the bureaucracy could move into wealth taxes, digital taxes, environmental taxes, financial-transaction taxes, and the taxation of individuals deemed internationally mobile.
These global organizations protect bureaucracy before sovereignty because bureaucracy is their product. They do not produce goods, discover medicine, grow food, or create wealth. They produce regulations, standards, frameworks, and reporting requirements that justify larger budgets and greater authority. Every disagreement becomes evidence that the world needs more coordination, and every failure becomes an excuse to expand the institution that designed the failed policy.
Japan, Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland, Denmark, and the other losing jurisdictions will not be incidental casualties. Their tax bases are being deliberately redistributed under a formula they may not control. The global bureaucracy calls this fairness because it evaluates success by the amount of money transferred into government hands, not by whether individual nations retain the right to govern themselves.
The latest polling from Europe exposes the hypocrisy behind the entire war campaign. Europeans have been frightened into supporting larger military budgets, common European debt, weapons for Ukraine, and an EU defense structure, but when they are asked whether they would personally pick up a rifle, the enthusiasm suddenly disappears. They support war in theory as long as Ukrainians, professional soldiers, or somebody else’s children are forced to die for it.
The European Council on Foreign Relations surveyed 19,481 adults across 15 European countries in May 2026. The results were presented under the absurdly triumphant title “Europeans are ready to defend themselves,” yet the underlying figures tell a far more complicated story. Europeans may be prepared to borrow money and purchase weapons, but most are not prepared to bear the physical cost of the policies they endorse.
The EU’s Spring 2026 Eurobarometer found that 81% support a common European defense and security policy, while 76% believe Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatens EU security. Another 76% said the EU should continue supporting Ukraine until a “just and lasting peace” is achieved. Those phrases are deliberately vague.
When the questions become personal, the numbers collapse. A recent cross-NATO study involving more than 31,000 respondents found that only 27% of Germans, 25% of Italians, 30% of the Dutch, and 33% of Hungarians and Czechs were willing to fight for their own countries. Sweden reached 66%, Finland 64%, Norway 61%, Lithuania 52%, and Poland 49%, which reflects the enormous geographical and cultural differences that Brussels pretends do not exist.
The ECFR polling likewise found that only about 38% of Europeans said they would personally fight if their country were attacked. Germany fell to just 29%. Asked whether their troops should defend a Baltic NATO member from a Russian attack, support averaged only 39%, while 43% opposed deployment. Sweden and Denmark reached roughly 60% to 62%, but opposition overwhelmed support in Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Hungary, and Romania.
This is the fundamental weakness in NATO’s political theater. Article 5 is presented as an automatic suicide pact, but the treaty does not cause populations to acquire the will to fight merely because politicians sign communiqués. Governments may order troops into battle, yet no alliance can manufacture morale through press conferences.
An admittedly non-representative Euronews online poll received nearly 10,000 responses to the question, “Would you fight for the EU’s borders?” Approximately 75% said no, only 19% said yes, and the remainder were uncertain. A Forsa poll in Germany found that only 16% would “definitely” take up arms if Germany were attacked. Another 22% said they probably would, while 59% said they probably or definitely would not. Among women, unwillingness reached 72%. Yet other polls found majorities supporting some form of military conscription. In other words, many Germans support a draft because they assume it will fall on someone else.
The financial polling exposes the same cowardice. The 2026 ECFR survey found that 47% supported collective European borrowing to finance defense. Support reached 59% in Portugal, 56% in Denmark, 55% in the Netherlands, and 53% in Spain. Borrowing is naturally popular because politicians pretend no one must pay for it.
When respondents were asked whether they would accept cuts to domestic public spending to fund defense, opposition surged to 63% in Italy, 59% in Austria, 56% in Germany, 54% in Spain, and 52% in Denmark. Europeans want the weapons, but they do not want lower pensions, reduced welfare, higher taxes, or fewer government services. They want war financed through debt so the bill can be concealed and transferred to the next generation.
Italy remains the clearest exception. In the May 2026 ECFR poll, 58% of Italians opposed additional military spending while only 28% supported it. Italy also recorded one of the lowest levels of willingness to fight, at roughly 25%. The Italian public understands that a nation carrying enormous public debt cannot borrow its way into another foreign war without eventually destroying its domestic economy.
European voters still view Ukraine favorably, but they do not want direct military responsibility. The ECFR survey found majorities opposed sending national troops into Ukraine even after a peace agreement, including in Germany, France, and Poland. Support for international peacekeeping deployments was weak, reaching only 18% in Denmark, 17% in Finland, 15% in Spain and Portugal, and 11% in Britain under the relevant polling formulation.
They call Ukraine an ally and demand that it continue fighting, but they refuse to send their own sons and daughters. This is precisely the arrangement European leaders prefer. Ukrainians supply the bodies, European taxpayers supply the money, defense contractors receive the contracts, and politicians receive a permanent foreign enemy to blame for every domestic failure.
Russia is now doubling the military content imposed on school children. Beginning September 1, military instruction in the compulsory course called “Fundamentals of Security and Defense of the Motherland” will rise from 20% to 50% of teaching time for students in grades six through eleven. The Russian government is converting the classroom into a military recruitment center.
The program reportedly includes drone operation, engineering instruction, military camps, and preparation for future service. Occupation authorities in Donetsk have approved a ten-year plan extending through 2036, while vocational students in occupied Kherson are being taught to operate, maintain, and repair drones. In occupied Luhansk, children are being absorbed into cadet groups, political organizations, and so-called patriotic movements designed to replace their identity with loyalty to Moscow.
Critics who say I only condemn Zelensky and Europe have not been reading my work closely. EVERY GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT. Few truly care about future generations. The masses are the disposable great unwashed to be used as their overlords see fit. Granted, many leaders are worse than others, but no one in government is “the good guy” when we are dealing with war. I do believe Putin attempted to extend the olive branch and end this conflict numerous times over, but that is simply impossible since the Western decision-makers believe this conflict can save their nations from the sovereign debt crisis. They are WRONG but there is too much tied into Ukraine at this point for the war to simply end. Kids will learn how to murder their fellow human because that is the world they will be raised in and the skills necessary to propel the machine. At the same time, this will not be a forever indefinite war. The world will not look the same once it is over.
Now the Kremlin is manufacturing a permanent mobilization reserve. The Eastern Human Rights Group warned that the objective is to shape children in both “skills and worldview,” and the inclusion of girls substantially expands the state’s potential manpower pool. A senior Russian lawmaker has even proposed beginning mandatory military training in the fifth grade, demonstrating how far the government is prepared to reach into childhood.
By 2036, many of today’s Kremlin officials will be retired or dead, while the children conditioned in their classrooms will be old enough to fight the next war. Believe me, the Russian oligarchs who want to replace Putin are ready to take this conflict to the next level. This is the ancient crime of government repeated once again—the old create the conflict, conceal their failures beneath patriotism, and send the young to settle the account in blood.
Categories:War
President Trump signed several executive orders today on the topic of computer chip manufacturing, birthright citizenship and birth tourism. The media questions begin at 7:30 of the video below.
.
The biggest winner in the Michigan Senate primary was not Abdul El-Sayed, nor was it Republican Mike Rogers. The biggest winner was the background stakeholder who gains the most, the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Mike Rogers previously defended the CIA, FBI and Hillary Clinton State Department from scrutiny in the Benghazi mess that underpinned the entire 2016 election manipulation. {GO DEEP} Mike Rogers was Chair of the SSCI who wrote the fabricated report that covered for Clinton’s Benghazi mess.
Now the IC repays the favor.
Rogers is a shoo-in for a seat on the SSCI as soon as he wins the Michigan Senate Race. Michiganders have too much at home familiarity with the severe slop of Islamism that surrounds them; and while El-Sayed will carry the communist coalition, the daily reality on the ground in Michigan is too close for deflection. This one was well played by the IC.
MICHIGAN – Abdul El-Sayed has won Michigan’s slugfest of a Democratic Senate primary … clinching the nomination in a close race over Rep. Haley Stevens and establishing a Midwest beachhead for a progressive left on the march this midterm cycle.
El-Sayed overcame a nearly $65 million onslaught of outside money and an establishment that had rallied around Stevens. Popular Gov. Gretchen Whitmer endorsed Stevens late last month — a move seen as a last-ditch effort to stop a rising El-Sayed.
El-Sayed, a former public health official, goes on to face former Rep. Mike Rogers, who claimed the Republican nomination without opposition Tuesday. Their race in November is expected to be one of the most competitive in the country, and it could determine which party controls the Senate. (read more)
I don’t see the IC letting this opportunity slip away.
This should be a GOP flip.
If we cut to the chase, the greatest likelihood is the same intelligence unit responsible for the Nordstream pipeline bombing are the same intelligence unit responsible for the Leipzig Airport drones. That would be Ukraine.
It appears the German government has learned its lesson from initially blaming Russia for Nordstream, as they now use the generic term “state actor” when describing the likely source.
BERLIN — German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt has suggested a state actor was behind the explosive-laden drone that was found at Leipzig airport.
“We can’t rule out the possibility that foreign powers are behind this,” Dobrindt told public broadcaster ZDF Wednesday evening. “That will now be part of the investigation, but there are many indications pointing in that direction,” he said.
Dobrindt stopped short of naming Russia specifically in his statements but said that “a hybrid threat is evident” and that such threats do not originate from amateurs but are “often linked to foreign powers.”
[…] Leipzig Airport serves as a strategic hub for NATO, including for military transports to Ukraine. The airport is also international courier service DHL’s largest European air hub and serves as a temporary home for some Ukrainian Antonov aircraft, protecting them from Russian attacks. The armed drone was found just meters away from such a plane, said officials Wednesday. (read more)
I don’t like doing this, but it needs to be done. People keep sending me this video; it is nonsense. Steve Bannon and John Solomon broadcast a conversation targeting John Thune, Tom Cotton and Todd Blanche for obstructing the release of transcripts held in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI).
What Solomon reports in this interview is disconnected from the process that exists. Solomon wants the transcripts of former CIA Director John Brennan released. Fine, no problem. Except Solomon apparently doesn’t understand the process to gain declassification of an equity that is not within the executive branch. The transcript is in the legislative branch.
There are separation of powers issues, equity issues and stakeholder issues that create a process that needs to be followed. This is the same process that was used to gain the Michael Atkinson transcript from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Solomon and Joe diGenova can follow the process and succeed, just like I did. Or Solomon and diGenova can gnash their teeth, create outrage and fail. WATCH (prompted):
This nonsense is why trusting John Solomon is a fool’s errand, and the reason why I have suspected Solomon of performance theater for several years. His teaming up with Steve Bannon, well, it just tracks.
Tick-Tock… Nothing. I digress.
First, assuming they have security clearances, John Solomon and/or Joe diGenova can ask SSCI Chairman Tom Cotton to let them read the Brennan transcript in the SSCI secured compartmented intelligence facility (scif). There is nothing stopping them, or anyone else with a clearance, from reading the transcript; assuming Cotton would permit it (he would). That’s the first point.
Second, after their review they can ask the SSCI to hold a senate vote to release the legislative branch equity to the executive branch, with a classification review that might need redactions based on stakeholder equity. [Same process as the Atkinson transcript]. The Senate can then vote to release it and start the process.
I am not a defender of John Thune or Tom Cotton; the exact opposite is true. However, you don’t defeat the silo system by attacking it at the point of their greatest strength. You obtain the material by following the process and forcing compliance with due diligence [just like the Atkinson transcript].
There is a separation of powers issue. The transcript belongs to the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The executive needs to request it from the legislative. Then it needs to be reviewed by IC stakeholders (ODNI and CIA) for classification review and/or redactions. Then it is returned to the SSCI who determine how to release it – from their own committee or to the DNI for release.
In current disposition the President cannot declassify something the executive branch doesn’t have.
As to the substance of Solomon’s previous release, the “Oxferd C0mma” documents, as I said last night nothing about that release is substantively new.
FBI General Counsel James Baker testified in two sessions to the House Intelligence Committee. In the second session transcript (released by Doug Collins – READ HERE) James Baker notes the 2nd FBI investigation was planned *BEFORE* FBI Director James Comey was fired. When Comey was fired, the optimal window to open the investigation was created for Andrew McCabe.
Rosenstein agreed to the plan, and “Oxferd C0mma” was triggered on 5/16/17. The objective of the EC signed by James Baker contained spurious and obtuse evidence in text because the real goal of the FBI/DOJ was to open a Special Counsel investigation. In essence, Oxferd C0mma was the placeholder for Mueller.
The group talked about the plan before Comey was fired. Comey’s termination simply triggered the timing. All of this was known nine years ago, that’s why to CTH readers none of this is new.
Those who did the deepest dives knew the investigation that opened 5/16/17 was planned before Comey was fired, and Comey’s termination was just the trigger window of the process to deliver Mueller… which was really what “Oxferd C0mma” was about.
Additionally, James Baker -who signed the EC- testified about the process to open the second investigation. It’s in his day #2 transcript. The firing of Comey just triggered the best window for the investigation they already planned.
So, yes “Oxferd C0mma” is new to people like John Solomon, but old news for those who did the research at the time. Again, go read Baker’s testimony (link above).
[SOURCE]
This was the exact same day when Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House.
Through a FOIA request Judicial Watch received Rod Rosenstein’s email communication around the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller [See Here]. The content further confirms when Rosenstein took Mueller to the White House on May 16th, 2017, the purpose was for Mueller to preview his target, President Trump.
Rosenstein took Mueller to visit Jeff Sessions on May 13th, the specifics of that email likely concern keeping prior private conversations out of the discussion with Sessions.
If we insert the Rosenstein email conversation into our timeline, the picture is clear.
Perhaps the most important aspect is how DAG Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House on May 16th, to interview President Trump. The decision to appoint Mueller as special counsel was predetermined prior to the White House visit:
♦James Comey was fired at approximately 5:00pm EST on Tuesday May 9th, 2017. The next morning, less than 15 hours after Comey was fired, Rosenstein contacted Robert Mueller about the special counsel appointment.
During the congressional testimony of Robert Mueller, Representative Andy Biggs noted evidence of a phone call between Mueller and Rod Rosenstein on Wednesday May 10th, 2017, at 7:45am.
From the Judicial Watch FOIA release, we can see that following the 7:45am phone call Rod Rosenstein received contact info from Mueller’s asst (8:09am), and Rosenstein emailed his assistant at 8:13am with instructions to contact Mueller’s asst and set up a meeting for Friday May 12th:
Marcia Murphy, from the Office of the DAG, then followed through and set up a meeting for 8:00am, Friday May 12th at Main Justice, between Rosenstein and Mueller:
Following that May 12th 8:00am meeting with Mueller, Rod Rosenstein then met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe Andrew McCabe. – According to McCabe:
… “[Rosenstein] asked for my thoughts about whether we needed a special counsel to oversee the Russia case. I said I thought it would help the investigation’s credibility. Later that day, I went to see Rosenstein again. This is the gist of what I said: I feel strongly that the investigation would be best served by having a special counsel.” (link)
Later that night (May 12th), at 9:15pm Rosenstein then emails Robert Mueller: “I assume you realize the boss and his staff do not know about our discussions.”
That email is directly related to a meeting scheduled on Saturday May 13th between Rosenstein, Mueller and Jeff Sessions; which is confirmed in the Andy Biggs questioning.
♦Sunday May 14th – Comey transmitted copies of Memos 2, 4, and 6, and a partially redacted copy of Memo 7 to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was one of Comey’s personal attorneys. Fitzgerald received the email and PDF attachment from Comey at 2:27 p.m. on May 14, 2017, per the IG report.
♦Monday May 15th, McCabe states he and Rosenstein conferred again about the Special Counsel approach. McCabe: “I brought the matter up with him again after the weekend.”
On this same day was when James Rybicki called SSA Whistleblower to notify him of Comey’s memos. The memos were “stored” in a “reception area“, and in locked drawers in James Rybicki’s office.
♦Tuesday May 16th – Per the IG report: “On the morning of May 16, Comey took digital photographs of both pages of Memo 4 with his personal cell phone. Comey then sent both photographs, via text message, to Richman.
Back in Main Justice, at 12:30pm, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Jim Crowell and Tashina Guahar all appear to be part of this meeting. I should note that alternate documentary evidence, gathered over the past two years, supports the content of this McCabe memo. Including texts between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok:
[Sidebar: pay attention to the *current* redactions; they appear to be placed by existing DOJ officials in an effort to protect Rod Rosenstein for his duplicity in: (A) running the Mueller sting operation at the white house on the same day; (B) the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel, which was predetermined before the Oval Office meeting.]
While McCabe was writing this afternoon memo, still May 16th, Rod Rosenstein took Robert Mueller to the White House for a meeting in the Oval Office with President Trump and VP Mike Pence.
After six days of phone calls, emails and in person meetings, this visit to the White House was clearly Rod Rosenstein introducing Robert Mueller to the target of the investigation. Rosenstein already knew he was going to appoint Mueller; and Mueller, along with the small group in the FBI, already knew Mueller was going to be appointed.
Later that night (May 16th), following the Mueller visit, there was a debriefing session back at Main Justice. This evening meeting appears to be Lisa Page, Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe; along with Tashina Gauhar again taking notes.
♦ Wednesday May 17th, 2017: Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe go to brief the congressional “Gang-of-Eight”: Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Adam Schiff, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Richard Burr and Mark Warner.
… […] “On the afternoon of May 17, Rosenstein and I sat at the end of a long conference table in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol. We were there to brief the so-called Gang of Eight—the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Rosenstein had, I knew, made a decision to appoint a special counsel in the Russia case.”
[…] “After reminding the committee of how the investigation began, I told them of additional steps we had taken. Then Rod took over and announced that he had appointed a special counsel to pursue the Russia investigation, and that the special counsel was Robert Mueller.” (link)
Immediately following this May 17, 2017, Go8 briefing, Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein notified the public of the special counsel appointment.
According to President Trump’s Attorney John Dowd, the White House was stunned by the decision. [Link] Coincidentally, AG Jeff Sessions was in the Oval Office for unrelated business when White House counsel Don McGahn came in and informed the group.
Jeff Sessions immediately offered his resignation, and Session’s Chief-of-Staff Jody Hunt went back to the Main Justice office to ask Rosenstein what the hell was going on.
Resources/Citations:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
Centinel2012 