Newly released emails show that Anthony Fauci KNEW that natural immunity was more effective than the COVID vaccine. If you want to understand how the modern world is collapsing, you have to stop pretending this was ever purely about “health.” COVID was not simply a virus. It was a stress test on society to see how quickly governments could suspend freedom, destroy commerce, and demand submission with the justification that they were “protecting the people.”
The emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by Protect the Public’s Trust show top Biden-era officials discussing an Israeli study on natural immunity from August 2021, which not so coincidentally was the same month that “the science” rolled our a federal vaccine mandate. Fauci called the Israeli study “rather impressive,” acknowledging that natural immunity was the informed choice over an experimental vaccine. But Fauci could not have gained power or wealth through natural immunity.
V
“This is the evidence right here showing that our nation’s scientific leaders were not acting scientifically, and there needs to be accountability,” said Stephanie Edewaard Weidle, executive director of Feds For Freedom, to the DCNF. “We in the medical freedom fighting world, we already knew this, but to see it spelled out in these FOIA documents just makes it worse. People lost their jobs and their lives were turned upside down based on the argument that natural immunity was not enough.”
The coronavirus scam was a trial run for the elitists’ attempts to forge their ‘Green New World Order’ through the clandestine operations of the United Nations, both by usurping its climate control recommendations and by merging them with the health recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO). Bill Gates dominates both of these entities. You cannot call this “conspiracy theory” when the pattern repeats throughout history. The tactic is always the same: scare the population, demand emergency powers, then never give them back. COVID was the excuse. The objective was submission.
If natural immunity was admitted, then the mandates fall apart. If the mandates fall apart, the entire political structure of enforcement collapses. As I explained in my book, The Cycle of War and the Coronavirus, the legal mechanism they are relying upon is Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which opened the door to forced vaccination. The Supreme Court held that vaccines could be mandated, and that is the precedent Gates and the public health dictatorship leaned on.
Under the pretense of battling a lethal virus, Fauci was able to build the threat into a psychological terrorist attack whereby people believe they will die unless they accept home imprisonment.
COVID became the excuse to accelerate a broader agenda: climate controls, digital ID, and a restructuring of society where freedom of movement is treated as a privilege granted by the state.
This is why the narrative was so rigid. They demonized anyone who questioned the lockdowns. They silenced doctors. They censored dissent. They turned neighbors against each other. Why? Because the lockdowns were not a “health measure.” They were a compliance measure. That is the real scandal. Not merely what Fauci said privately versus publicly, but the fact that the entire structure of Western society was taken hostage by bureaucrats who were never elected and could not be removed.
Donald Trump declared at Davos that America would not become a nation of renters, much to the dismay of the “you will own nothing and be happy” audience. Trump is now talking about banning large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, claiming this is about restoring the American Dream and ending the insanity where “people live in homes, not corporations.”
Axios reported that investors bought roughly 1 in 3 single-family homes in Q2 2025 (using BatchData), and the entire debate now comes down to how they define “institutional investor” and whether Congress will actually codify it into law.
I understand the motivation, and I agree with the public anger. The question is whether this actually fixes the problem or just creates the next one. The real estate market did not become unaffordable because a few Wall Street firms bought houses. It became unaffordable because government destroyed purchasing power, drove up the cost of living, and then pretended the cure was more regulation.
Institutional investors did not wake up one day and decide to “ruin homeownership.” They responded to incentives. The system pushed capital into assets because people no longer trust paper promises. The moment confidence in government declines, capital moves.
Now, do I like the idea of hedge funds and giant landlords buying entire neighborhoods? No. But the real problem is supply and cost. If you don’t address zoning, property taxes, regulation, insurance, building costs, and the fact that mortgage rates have trapped millions of people in place, you’re not addressing the root issue. If they define “institutional” too broadly, you will end up crushing the small investor and the private builder who actually supplies rentals in markets where people cannot buy. Demand vanished because the monthly payment exploded.
Hence why there are over 37% more sellers than buyers in America’s real estate market. Institutional investors are merely on facet of a multi-layered problem.
Governments do not honor their veterans—period. It is absolutely shameful to see how governments treat the men and women who risk their lives to defend their nation. A disabled war veteran in the UK was arrested last year for protesting in favor of Palestine. Police lifted this man out of his wheelchair and sent him to jail on a stretcher.
The Bonus Army episode is one of the clearest historical warnings about what happens when governments make promises they cannot honor and then respond to economic stress with force instead of reform. In 1932, tens of thousands of World War I veterans marched on Washington to demand early payment of bonuses that had been promised to them for their service. These were not radicals or revolutionaries. These men were former soldiers who believed the government would keep its word. Instead, they were treated as a threat. President Hoover ordered troops to attack the veterans, forcing them to flee. We saw the same with the Coxley’s Army, which was the march on Washington following the Panic of 1893 and massive unemployment.
Governments always fear veterans because they expose the lie. These are the people who were told there was honor, duty, and reward in service. When they return home to broken promises, inadequate care, or economic hardship, they become living proof that the social contract was fraudulent. Rather than admit failure, the state chooses censorship, intimidation, or character assassination. It is far easier to silence the messenger than to confront the insolvency of the promises made.
When governments begin silencing veterans, you are no longer dealing with a free society — you are witnessing the unmistakable decline phase of the state. Veterans are the last group any rational government should attempt to suppress. They are not activists looking for power; they are people who once believed in the system strongly enough to risk their lives for it. When even they are treated as enemies, confidence has already collapsed.
As most of you know for several years, I have been on the trail of the intelligence community role in the targeting of President Trump. Part of that research involved locating evidence to show exactly who was inside the intelligence apparatus and what they were doing.
Simultaneous to my effort, I notice there has been growing frustration over the fact that none of the participants in the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” construct have been brought to justice.
I’m going to explain as best I can why accountability is not happening, while disclosing the latest information I have to share.
Just as the location of Devin Nunes’ House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) report into the formation of the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was unknown until last year, so too was the location of the transcript containing testimony from Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson similarly hidden.
The HPSCI report on the ICA was buried in the security vault of the CIA. Following the change in administration, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and DNI Tulsi Gabbard found it and released it.
The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony about the CIA whistleblower is also buried; only now we know where the House Impeachment Committee co-chair Adam Schiff hid it. The transcript is in a sealed classified vault inside the HPSCI.
The transcript is being read this week, it may have already been read. I am confident the reason for Adam Schiff to classify it and hide it will become transparently obvious to the reader. However, then we as a nation face a problem.
Now, we could drag this out, wait to see how it plays and remain quiet while we watch. However, too much time has been wasted; so let me just cut to the chase. The transcript is one key part of the information that proves the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was behind the August to December 2019 impeachment effort against President Donald Trump.
In late 2019, President Trump’s own CIA, our government, was trying to weaken and remove President Trump.
The full background of the situation is described below, with citations. I strongly suggest we all think about the implications.
In December of 2016, President Obama turned to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan with a request to change the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and blame the Russians for election interference in the prior presidential election. Brennan gave the task of assembling the fraudulent intel to a CIA analyst named Julia Gurganus.
Subsequently, inside the CIA the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the Directorate of Analysis began working on a pretext that would create the impression for the misleading Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) as demanded by Obama, Clapper and Brennan; ultimately it was constructed by Julia Gurganus.
Inside the National Intelligence Council, one of the key figures who helped create the ICA fabrication was a CIA analyst named Eric Ciaramella.
You might remember the name Eric Ciaramella from the 2019 impeachment effort against President Trump. However, in 2016 Eric Ciaramella was a CIA deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia on the CIA’s National Intelligence Council at the time the fraudulent Intelligence Community Assessment was created.
♦ The key point to remember here is that Eric Ciaramella was one of the fabricators of the fraudulent ICA; constructed late December 2016 and presented in January 2017 as part of the foundation for the Trump-Russia narrative.
Earlier this year, DNI Tulsi Gabbard began to drill down onto the issue of the fraudulent ICA and how it was constructed. Current CIA analysts within the former National Intelligence Council (NIC) and CIA Directorate of Analysis began to notice Tulsi was going to declassify background documents, including the two-year House Intelligence Committee report revealing the fraud. Tulsi Gabbard became a target.
Julia Gurganus was an active government employee at the time Tulsi Gabbard began making inquiries. The CIA (NIC) changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025 to that of a “covert” operative, in an effort to protect Gurganus.
The CIA changed the status of Julia Gurganus in June 2025, reclassifying her as ‘covert’, specifically because of the ODNI’s intent to reveal the fraud within the 2016 Russia election investigation. This, the CIA thought, would forcibly stop DNI Gabbard from exposing Ms. Gurganus and taking action. The 2025 CIA effort did not work.
In late July of 2025, DNI Gabbard released the CIA intelligence information that was used in constructing the fraudulent ICA.
On July 23rd, Tulsi Gabbard held a press conference alongside Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and outlined the issues.
In August 2025, DNI Gabbard then declassified and released the CIA work product, and then later removed Julia Gurganus security clearance.
The CIA embeds at the NIC and directorate of analysis were furious, and subsequently leaked a false story to the Wall Street Journal saying DNI Gabbard had compromised a covert CIA operative working in government – a familiar ploy that had worked for them in the past. However, this time it did not work, because her work history clearly showed Julia Gurganus was a known CIA employee.
♦ Key point: Julia Gurganus and Eric Ciaramella both worked on behalf of CIA Director John Brennan to fabricate the fraudulent ICA in 2016, released in January 2017, just before President Trump took office. Ms Gurganus was still a CIA employee in August of 2025.
Back to Ciaramella…
In 2019 National Security Council (NSC) member Alexander Vindman also responsible for Ukraine, Russia Eurasia affairs, told CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella a fictional narrative about President Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to provide dirt on Joe Biden in advance of the 2020 election.
Eric Ciaramella then became an “anonymous whistleblower” within the CIA to reveal the story and set up the predicate for the first Trump impeachment effort in late 2019. You might remember the name, because during the impeachment effort anyone who mentioned Eric Ciaramella on social media had their information deleted, and they were blocked from their accounts.
Facebook, Google, META, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter all deleted any mention of Eric Ciaramella as the anonymous whistleblower, and banned any account that posted the name. However, something else was always sketchy about this.
As the story was told, Ciaramella blew the whistle to Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. It was further said that Atkinson “changed the CIA whistleblower rules” to permit an “anonymous” allegation; thereby protecting Eric Ciaramella.
Knowing, in hindsight, that CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella was one of the main people who constructed the 2016 fraudulent ICA, suddenly the motive to make him “anonymous” a few years later in 2019 for another stop-Trump effort makes sense.
Until today, the commonly accepted narrative was that ICIG Atkinson changed the CIA rules arbitrarily. This is the main narrative as pushed by the media, allowed to permeate by the larger Intelligence Community, and supported by the willful blindness of a complicit Congress.
It never made sense how an IC Inspector General, especially one that involves review of CIA employees/operations, could make such a substantive change in rules for an agency that is opaque by design. There is just no way any IG can make that kind of decision about the CIA without the Director, the Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel being involved.
Someone in DNI or CIA leadership had to sign off on allowing ICIG Atkinson to change the rules and permit a complaint by Eric Ciaramella being turned into an “anonymous complaint.”
♦ Now, things are going to start getting a little dark here, because the implications are serious and the aspect of ICIG Atkinson’s testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) being sealed is a little more than alarming when you consider what they were trying to do – impeach a sitting USA President on a fabricated issue.
Some context is needed.
Inspectors General do not operate in a vacuum. They are authorized to conduct investigative oversight, as an outcome of permissions from the cabinet agency heads themselves. The ICIG office, formerly headed by Michael Atkinson, falls under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.
As the Inspector General of the Dept of Justice does not operate without the expressed permission of the U.S. Attorney General, so too is it required for the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to have permission to operate in CIA functions with the expressed permission of the CIA Director.
To give you an example: You might remember when President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder created the Dept of Justice National Security Division (DOJ-NSD), they did not permit the DOJ Inspector General to have any oversight or review.
The 2009-2017 public reasoning was “national security interests,” as the DOJ-NSD was in charge of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISC) operations as well as Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) reviews and investigations. The factual, evidence-based reason was the DOJ-NSD running political surveillance operations using FISA and FARA as weaponized targeting mechanisms to keep track of their political opposition, ie Lawfare. [But that’s another story]
In fact, in 2015 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the DOJ, Michael Horowitz, requested oversight and it was Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates who responded with a lengthy 58-page legal explanation saying, essentially, ‘nope – not allowed.’ (PDF HERE) All of the DOJ is subject to oversight, except the NSD.
You see, the Department of Justice’s own Inspector General (Michael Horowitz who opened a January 2017 investigation into the 2016 politicization of the FBI and DOJ) was not allowed to investigate anything that happened within the NSD agency of the Department of Justice. See the ‘useful arrangement‘? Yeah, Funny that.
It was not until 2018, when the OIG was tasked by then Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Trump to look into the fraudulent FISA application used against Carter Page, when the OIG was finally given authority to review activity within the Dept of Justice National Security Division.
♦ The two key points here are: #1) ICIG Michael Atkinson does not make unilateral decisions to change the internal rules within the CIA, without the expressed permission of the CIA Director, CIA Deputy Director and CIA General Counsel. #2) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) would also know of the changed rules and arrangement therein.
At the time of the impeachment allegation and investigation by the House (Aug to Dec 18, 2019), the CIA Director was Gina Haspel (May 21, 2018, to January 20, 2021). The CIA Deputy Director was Vaughn Bishop, and the CIA General Counsel was Courtney Simmons Elwood. In addition, the Acting DNI was Joseph Maguire.
We can reasonably be certain that CIA General Counsel Courtney Elwood and Acting DNI Joseph Maguire did not sign-off on changing the CIA rules permitting an anonymous whistleblower, because published media reports at the time outline both offices as NOT supporting the effort of ICIG Atkinson.
In fact, as the story is told (and investigatively affirmed) CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was frustrated because he talked to CIA General Counsel Elwood about the leak from Alexander Vindman, and Elwood did not respond to his claims.
Instead, of following chain-of-command, CIA Analyst Ciaramella went to the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and relayed the story as told to him by Vindman. The 2019 conversation between Ciaramella, the CIA analyst who previously fabricated the fraudulent Russia ICA in 2017, and Adam Schiff who fraudulently pushed the Trump-Russia narrative in 2017, took place prior to the CIA whistleblower complaint being filed.
Now we get to the crux of the story.
♦ On October 4, 2019, ICIG Michael Atkinson gave closed-door testimony to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) as part of their impeachment investigation. One of the key questions to Atkinson surrounded the authority of his office changing the CIA whistleblower rules that permitted Eric Ciaramella to remain anonymous.
That Atkinson testimony was then “classified” and sealed under the auspices of “national security” by HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff, the same guy who Ciaramella talked to before filing the complaint.
If congress, or more importantly the American public had known CIA Analyst Eric Ciaramella was both the key author of the fraudulent 2016 ICA and the later 2019 CIA complaint, it’s doubtful any impeachment effort would have moved forward.
From within the CIA, Eric Ciaramella was both the impeachment narrative creator and the Russian interference narrative creator. In short, a political fabricator of intelligence within the CIA.
Again, ICIG Atkinson could not change the ‘whistleblower’ regulations on his own. Someone had to sign-off on that, giving him the authority.
Additionally, Atkinson a former legal counsel to the Deputy Asst Attorney General within the DOJ-NSD, is not going to go out on such a limb without a cya to protect himself.
The only person likely to give that authority within the structures and confines that operate inside our government was then CIA Director, Gina Haspel. The Deputy CIA Director is not going to make that kind of a decision, especially given the circumstances, and the CIA General Counsel was not touching it.
That outline of events means the 2016/2017 CIA ‘stop-Trump’ operation under CIA Director John Brennan, was effectively continued by CIA Director Gina Haspel in 2019/2020.
[SIDENOTE: Now, does the 2020 CIA operation known as the “51 Intelligence Experts’ who denied the Hunter Biden laptop story take on context? Now, does the 2025 reaction, the angry outburst by former CIA Director John Brennan about the ICA construct take on some context?]
This is where doors slam and DC officials run out of the room.
This is where ‘pretending not to know‘ takes on another meaning entirely.
♦ IMPLICATIONS: CIA Director Gina Haspel had no way to know if the 2019 impeachment of President Trump was going to be successful. Just as the ICIG needed a CYA to protect himself, so too would Director Haspel want a legal defense mechanism in case the entire fiasco blew up. Enter the only oversight agency that can provide Haspel cover, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Underneath all of these machinations, there’s no other way for Director Haspel to protect herself other than to use the primary mechanism within the functions of IC oversight, inform the SSCI chair and vice-chair of her changed rule guidance to ICIG Atkinson. That Occam’s Razor scenario puts SSCI chairman ¹Richard Burr and SSCI vice-chair Mark Warner in the silo-system loop. If things blew up, Haspel could always defend herself by pointing to her informing the mechanism for CIA oversight, the SSCI.
• DNI Dan Coats resigned from office when the Trump impeachment effort was announced, August 2019.
• Acting DNI Joseph Maguire was appointed by President Trump to replace Dan Coats.
• Following the impeachment trial, President Donald Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 5th, 2020.
• On Feb 20, 2020, President Trump replaced acting DNI Joseph Maguire with acting DNI Ric Grenell.
• On February 28, 2020, President Trump nominated John Ratcliffe to be DNI.
• Ratcliffe was confirmed May 26, 2020, and took office.
Before the impeachment effort began, Congressman John Ratcliffe was President Trump’s first choice to replace outgoing DNI Dan Coats in 2019. However, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said they would not confirm John Ratcliffe. President Trump was forced to appoint “acting DNIs.”
Somehow, within an unexplained reversal, after the impeachment effort ended, the senate intelligence committee (SSCI) had a change of position and agreed to confirm congressman John Ratcliffe as Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
As the fully confirmed DNI, in 2020 John Ratcliffe would have full control of the ICIG, including an understanding of what took place within the CIA that led to the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination.
As Chair of the SSCI in 2019, it is highly likely that CIA Director Gina Haspel informed Richard Burr of the change in protocol creating the “anonymous whistleblower” complaint: the impeachment origination. ¹Richard Burr was replaced by Marco Rubio in May 2020.
John Ratcliffe is now CIA Director. Marco Rubio is now National Security Advisor.
UPDATE: The transcript of ICIG Michael Atkinson’s testimony remains sealed inside the Republican controlled House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, HPSCI.
Republicans in the House have not released the Atkinson transcript since they took control.
As a consequence…. How can the story of the CIA targeting the President of the United States get told?
Even if an executive branch intelligence leader read the transcript from inside the HPSCI, and considering the separation of powers (evidence inside legislative branch), and considering that information is sealed and classified (would require a full committee vote to unseal), and considering the ramifications that would rain down upon anyone who would make that request to release; well, who exactly is going to tell that story, under what conditions and facing what consequences?
People of great trust; people of great power; people currently very close to President Trump, would themselves be at risk from the release of the information showing the 2019 President Trump CIA was deliberately targeting President Trump to weaken him and/or remove him from office.
Think about this very carefully.
The jaw-dropping reality of this situation will explain why we have seen no action or accountability by DC toward any of the “Spygate” or “Russiagate” activity. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
The truth has no agenda.
I’m doing all I can…
The predicate for Jack Smith to prosecute President Trump for his efforts to “interfere in the 2020 election”, and thereby “challenge all democratic norms”, essentially boiled down to Jack Smith accusing President Trump of participating in a fraud when he challenged the outcome of the 2020 election.
To get beyond President Trump’s first amendment right to free speech, Jack Smith previously claimed to congress that Trump knowingly understood, “believed” that Joe Biden had won the election. That President Trump was told by senior Republican advisors that Biden had legitimately won the 2020 election, and that President Trump rejected the reality of the “truthful information” presented to him; instead choosing to launch a psychological operation against the American people, i.e. “fraud.”
However, in sworn testimony in the House today, Jack Smith admitted that President Trump “was believing anything that would keep him in office.” The key word here is “believe.” Within that statement, Smith revealed he had no case against Trump because President Trump believed he won the 2020 election. WATCH:
If President Trump believed he won the election, he could not commit fraud by expressing his belief. Jack Smith’s entire predicate for the criminal investigation of President Trump was the charge of “fraud,” or intentional deception.
It is the charge of “fraud” which underpins the entirety of the case against Donald Trump, as pursued by Jack Smith. The charge itself is predicated on definitions of what constitutes truthful information, and within that subset of predicate you begin to realize just how important it is to professional leftists that they control information.
The case was dropped after the results of the November 2024 election, won by President Trump. However, if President Trump had not won that election, the prosecution would have continued.
Jack Smith notes in his testimony, in the most Machiavellian way, that his primary prosecution approach was to present “Republican” witnesses like Mike Pence, who Smith cunningly said he could not discuss as he was restricted from revealing grand jury testimony.
Smith was prepared to present witness testimony from Pence and other political “Republicans” who told President Trump that Joe Biden had legitimately won the election, and Trump needed to concede. This testimony then forms the baseline for the definition of “truthful information” that Trump rejected out of a malice mindset to continue clinging to power.
In essence, Smith defines what is “truth” (Biden won), then outlines how that truthful information was delivered and how President Trump dismissed it. Therefore, President Trump’s “mens-rea”, or state of mind, was one of promoting an intentional falsehood. According to the Lawfare approach selected by Smith, this mindset is the predicate that blocks President Trump from using his First Amendment right to speech as a defense.
Intentional fraud is not allowed under the protections of “free speech.” Jack Smith wanted to prove that President Trump was engaged in intentional fraud and wanted to prove his mindset therein through the use of Republican political voices who delivered information to President Trump.
Jack Smith sought to define “truth” and then counter the free speech defense by mob agreement on what constitutes the “truth.” Under this predicate, President Trump was being prosecuted for a thought crime, and Jack Smith sought to legally prove he knew his thoughts.
The only way Jack Smith could prove fraud would be to prove that President Trump believed the information about Joe Biden winning the election. Smith sought to prove Trump’s belief by presenting Republican voices who told President Trump he lost.
Whether you like or dislike President Trump, the issue here is alarming when contemplated.
A man tells you a chicken is a frog, you laugh. The man then brings 15 of your family members to tell you a chicken is a frog. You reject the absurdity of the premise, but the man brings forth hundreds more people to tell you the chicken is a frog, and if you do not accept that Chickens are Frogs, you will be defined as mentally impaired, institutionalized and become a ward of the state.
[Insert any similar metaphor needed, including “what is a woman.”]
When we consider the current state of sociological, societal or government manipulation of information, and/or the need for government to control information (mis-dis-mal-information) as an overlay, you can quickly see where this type of legal predicate can take us. Bizarro world becomes a dystopian nightmare.
Yes, it is also clear that Leftists, inside that closed-door committee hearing, are intending to impeach President Trump on these grounds if they successfully win the 2026 midterm election. However, that is not the critical takeaway from this deposition. Instead, the critical takeaway is how the Lawfare construct can be twisted and manipulated to create the legal means to the leftist ends.
Stop the Division!
We cannot allow these communist, Marxist and leftist-minded control agents get back into power.
It’s not about Trump. It’s about us.
President Trump held an impromptu press conference aboard Airforce One returning back to the United States from the World Economic Forum assembly in Davos, Switzerland.
Most of the questions surrounded the details of Greenland, the NATO relationship and the European Union. Additional questions returned to the issue of Ukraine and Russia with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner currently in Moscow meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. WATCH:
.
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 