There is something deeply disturbing taking place in Europe. The generation that remembers war only through documentaries is increasingly willing to tell the generation that would actually have to fight one that military service should become compulsory. France provides perhaps the clearest example. An IFOP survey found that 64% of French respondents supported compulsory military service for people between 18 and 25. But look beneath that number and everything changes. Among the 18-to-24-year-olds who would actually be affected, support was only 40%. Among those aged 50 to 64, it soared to 80%. Among people 65 and older, 71% supported it. It is always easier to demand sacrifice when somebody else’s body will be making it.
France abolished compulsory military service decades ago, but military service is creeping back into the political conversation as Europe prepares for the possibility of a prolonged confrontation with Russia. Macron has now launched a voluntary national service program beginning with 3,000 young people, with plans to expand it to 10,000 annually and potentially 50,000 by 2035. They receive military training and €800 per month, and the government insists the present program is voluntary and that these recruits are not intended to be deployed abroad.
France’s armed forces chief, General Fabien Mandon, caused an uproar when he said the country needed the strength to “accept losing its children” if it was going to deter Russia. How could any mother or father sacrifice their child to an endless war? What will these neocons do to brainwash the public into believing this sacrifice must take place?
For years, European leaders told younger generations that nationalism was antiquated, borders mattered less, Europe had moved beyond war, and economic integration would make the conflicts of the twentieth century impossible. Now those same institutions are rediscovering patriotism because they need soldiers. Suddenly the nation matters again when governments need an 18-year-old to defend it.
At the same time, what exactly has this generation inherited from their lovely government? Housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Government debt continues climbing. Taxes consume enormous portions of income. Pension systems are strained by aging populations, and younger workers are expected to finance benefits for generations far larger than their own. Now the same political establishment wants them to shoulder Europe’s military burden as well. Governments spent decades borrowing against the future, and the young were already going to inherit that debt. Apparently, that was not enough.
This is precisely where Europe’s demographic crisis collides with its military ambitions. France, Germany, Italy, and much of Europe are aging. Governments need young people working, paying taxes, producing goods, starting businesses, having children, supporting pension systems, and maintaining the productive economy. Now they also want a larger pool of soldiers and reservists. You cannot keep demanding more from a shrinking generation without eventually discovering that there are not enough young people to satisfy every promise politicians made before they were born.
The numbers reveal the contradiction better than any politician ever could. Only 40% of those aged 18 to 24 in the IFOP survey supported compulsory service for their age group, while support reached 80% among those aged 50 to 64. The people most enthusiastic about compelling the young to serve are therefore not the people who would be fleeing a drone strike far away from home.
There is something profoundly wrong when the older generations sit comfortably at home discussing the necessity of sacrifice while debating whether the young should once again be prepared for the trenches. If France itself were attacked, young French men and women would have to decide what defending their country means to them, and polling suggests many would indeed be prepared to serve. But demanding compulsory service for somebody else’s generation is not sacrifice. Sacrifice is what you are willing to give yourself. Sending somebody else’s son or daughter to pay the price for your geopolitical decisions is something entirely different.
Spain’s housing crisis has finally exploded into the streets. Tens of thousands marched through Madrid after an 87-year-old disabled woman, Maricarmen Abascal, was removed from the apartment where she had lived for more than 70 years. Police battled protesters trying to stop the eviction, and Maricarmen was ultimately carried from the building on a stretcher and taken away by ambulance. Protesters have now erected tents in Puerta del Sol, turning one woman’s eviction into a national symbol of a housing system that is breaking down.
The Bank of Spain estimated that the country was already short roughly 550,000 homes last year. Spain has experienced enormous pressure from tourism, short-term rentals, population growth, immigration, and years of inadequate housing construction. Madrid, Barcelona, Málaga, the Balearic Islands, and other desirable areas have seen housing costs move far beyond what ordinary wages can support. This is what happens when demand expands much faster than supply. Politicians can pass all the laws they want, but they cannot repeal economics.
Maricarmen became the face of this crisis because her case is so brutal. She had lived in the apartment for 71 years. After the building changed hands, she was offered the opportunity to purchase the apartment for €247,000, an impossible amount for a pensioner. Her rent had been €500 per month and was subsequently raised to €1,650 while her pension was reportedly only €1,350. The landlord ultimately prevailed in court over the validity of the old tenancy arrangement, and after several attempts to prevent the eviction, she was physically removed.
Now everyone is furious, and naturally the politicians are scrambling to prove that they can fix the problem they failed to prevent. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has promised another housing decree with stronger tenant protections and restrictions on evictions. His coalition partners are going even further. Sumar has demanded that the government expropriate Maricarmen’s former apartment so she can return to it, although another government minister has questioned whether such a move clearly fits within Spain’s constitution. Protesters are demanding rent freezes, restrictions on investment funds, stronger eviction protections, and still more government intervention in the housing market.
You cannot solve a shortage by making housing less attractive to build, finance, rent, or own. Housing is unaffordable, therefore punish the landlord. Rents are rising, therefore control the rent. Investment funds purchase buildings, therefore prohibit them from buying property. A tenant is evicted, therefore expropriate the apartment. Every solution attacks the symptom while politicians refuse to understand why people can no longer afford housing.
Spain needs more construction, more investment, faster permitting, available land, infrastructure, and an economic environment where developers can actually make a return for taking the enormous financial risk of constructing housing. If the political response to a shortage is to threaten landlords with rent controls, expropriation, restrictions on ownership, and increasingly difficult eviction procedures, capital does not magically volunteer to build millions of additional apartments. It goes somewhere else.
This is the same mistake governments make every time they interfere with markets. They see the price and assume the price is the problem. The price is the message. Rising rents are screaming that there is insufficient housing relative to demand. Suppressing the price does not manufacture another apartment any more than imposing a price ceiling on bread creates more wheat.
Spain’s population has been growing while housing construction has failed to keep pace. Immigration is not the sole cause of Spain’s housing crisis, nor are tourists, Airbnb, investment funds, or landlords. But every person requires somewhere to live. You cannot continuously increase housing demand while failing to increase supply and then act astonished when prices rise.
This is why the demonstrations in Madrid are so important. Housing is becoming a political fault line throughout Europe because younger generations increasingly believe the economic system has locked them out of ownership. Their parents purchased homes on ordinary salaries, often with only one working parent. Today young people can work full-time, pay enormous taxes, and still struggle to rent a small apartment without roommates. They are postponing marriage, children, and family formation because housing has become unaffordable. That has enormous consequences for Europe’s already disastrous demographics.
Watching an 87-year-old disabled woman being carried from the home she occupied for seven decades while protesters clash with police is precisely the sort of image that destroys confidence in the political system. But emotion does not change the underlying economics. Spain can confiscate Maricarmen’s apartment tomorrow and it will still be short hundreds of thousands of homes.
We are watching this same mentality spread across Europe. Britain is expanding powers allowing councils to take control of qualifying homes left empty for only six months. Spain’s governing coalition is openly debating expropriating a privately owned apartment. Rent controls and restrictions on landlords are spreading while governments simultaneously complain that there is not enough housing. These policies will not remain isolated because every socialist government eventually discovers the same convenient solution to scarcity: when government cannot provide enough, it begins telling private citizens what they may do with what they own.
Spain’s housing crisis is not going away because somebody passes another decree in Madrid. The Bank of Spain’s estimated shortage is measured in hundreds of thousands of homes. That cannot be solved with slogans, rent controls, or confiscating apartments one at a time. You either increase supply or continue fighting over the supply that already exists.
Madrid is showing us what happens when politicians choose the latter. Tens of thousands of people are already in the streets, tents are appearing in Puerta del Sol, and an 87-year-old woman has become the symbol of a generation that no longer believes housing is within reach. Governments should be very careful. Once people conclude that working harder will never allow them to own a piece of their own country, the housing crisis stops being about real estate. It becomes a crisis of confidence in the entire political and economic system.
Britain has decided that leaving your own property empty for six months may now be sufficient reason for the government to begin taking control of it. Housing Secretary Angela Rayner has announced that councils in England will be given expanded powers under Empty Dwelling Management Orders, reducing the qualifying period from TWO YEARS to just SIX MONTHS. The government will also remove requirements that councils demonstrate matters such as anti-social behavior or community support before seeking an order. They call this bringing empty homes “back into use.” I call it another erosion of the basic principle that private property belongs to the person who paid for it.
Let us be precise because the government is not technically confiscating ownership of the house. Under an EDMO, the title remains with the owner, and there are exemptions, including where the property is normally someone’s primary residence and that person is temporarily absent. But the state can take over management of a qualifying privately owned property and put it back into occupation. Ownership without the right to decide who occupies your property and when is becoming a rather interesting definition of ownership.
There are more than 300,000 long-term empty homes in England while more than 100,000 households are living in temporary accommodation. That is the political justification. There is a housing shortage; therefore, privately owned homes sitting unused should be brought back into circulation. Supporters argue that abandoned and derelict properties damage neighborhoods and that the government should intervene when owners let homes decay for years. There is a distinction between an abandoned ruin that attracts rats and crime for neighbors and someone simply deciding not to occupy a property they own. But that is precisely why reducing the threshold to six months should make people uncomfortable.
The government admits it does not even maintain a national count of EDMOs issued by councils, but tribunal records show only 10 applications or receipts in 2019/20, five in 2020/21, three in 2021/22, and ZERO in both 2022/23 and 2023/24. That is precisely why this change matters. The government is not responding to some enormous existing wave of properties already being taken over under EDMOs; it is deliberately making a rarely used state power easier to exercise. England had roughly 542,000 chargeable empty dwellings in October 2025, and the new rules reduce the eligibility threshold from two years to only six months while stripping away some of the evidentiary hurdles councils previously faced. Nobody can honestly tell you today how many additional homes councils will take under management once those barriers disappear. That is the experiment they are about to conduct with other people’s property.
Where I live, it’s quite common for homeowners to occupy their land for only part of the year. Six months is not some extraordinary period of abandonment. Estates become trapped in probate, families inherit properties and need time to decide what to do with them, renovations are delayed, owners become sick, sales collapse, couples separate, families maintain second properties, markets turn down, and owners wait rather than sell into a bad market. Countless reasons can keep a house unoccupied that have absolutely nothing to do with some evil speculator deliberately depriving society of housing.
Britain has a housing crisis, but politicians never want to address why housing became so expensive and scarce in the first place. Planning restrictions constrain supply. Construction costs have soared. Taxes and regulation discourage development. Government spending and monetary policy helped inflate asset prices. Mass immigration has added demand for housing, particularly in areas already suffering shortages. Temporary accommodation now costs taxpayers billions of pounds annually. Rather than admit that decades of policy created the shortage, government inevitably looks around for another pool of private assets it can manage.
The government says these reforms are intended to help families in need and people facing homelessness, and existing housing programs also provide accommodation for groups including Afghan resettlement families. Broader housing pressure does not erase the property rights question. A government confronted with insufficient housing has two choices: fix the policies restricting supply or acquire increasing control over the housing that already exists. Bureaucracy invariably finds the second option easier.
Watch this principle because Britain will not be the last country to consider it. Governments throughout Europe face housing shortages, aging populations, enormous migration pressures, fiscal constraints, and young people who increasingly cannot afford homes. The political temptation will be irresistible: identify privately owned assets that appear “underutilized” and declare that society has a greater need for them than the owner does.
That is the socialist mentality in its purest form. Your property remains yours only for as long as government approves of how you are using it as government sees fit. The debate should not be reduced to defending abandoned buildings that have been rotting for decades. Nobody wants derelict properties destroying neighborhoods. The issue is where the line is drawn and how quickly it moves. Britain has just moved that line from two years to six months while simultaneously making intervention easier.
Once government establishes the principle that private property may be commandeered because bureaucrats believe somebody else can make better use of it, the argument is no longer about an empty house. It is about who ultimately decides what happens to private property: the person who owns it or the state that has decided it knows better.
QUESTION: I was told that you had said the three wise men in the Nativity were Iranian and that they were the source of this final battle of Armageddon. Is that true?
WP
ANSWER: Yes, as far as the Nativity. The core concept of a final cosmic battle often known as Armageddon, also has ancient roots. Many historians trace this worldview back to the Persian prophet Zoroaster (around 1500 BC), who spoke of a cosmic struggle between good and evil ending in a perfect new world. This idea deeply influenced Jewish thought during times of great oppression, such as the Babylonian exile and the persecution by Greek rulers. The Book of Daniel (written around 167 BC) is a key text from this period, promising that God would soon overthrow the evil kingdoms oppressing the Jews. Early Christianity emerged from this same apocalyptic Jewish context, with followers believing Jesus’s return was imminent.
Zoroastrianism is significantly older than Christianity, and the “Three Wise Men” were most likely Zoroastrian priests. Zoroastrianism is one of the world’s oldest revealed religions. Its prophet, Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), is traditionally placed in the late 7th to early 6th centuries BC, though some scholars argue its origins stretch back even further into the 2nd millennium BC. This means it was already a well-established faith centuries before the birth of Jesus. It was the dominant religion of ancient Persia (modern-day Iran) until the 7th century AD.
The Gospel of Matthew calls them “Magi from the East” (Matthew 2:1). The Greek word magoi specifically referred to the priestly caste of ancient Persia, who were renowned for their knowledge of astrology and sacred texts. Most scholars agree these Magi were Zoroastrian priest-astrologers.
Several details support this, including their expertise in reading the stars, a core practice of Zoroastrian priests. The “East” points to Persia or Babylon, regions where Zoroastrianism was influential. The gold, frankincense, and myrrh they brought were traditional Persian royal gifts.
The familiar image of “three kings” comes from later Christian tradition, not the Bible itself. The number three comes from the three gifts, and the idea that they were kings was likely inspired by Old Testament prophecies. Totally shocking to most, is a train station in Tehran is dedicated to the Virgin Mary and Christianity that was opened recently in October 2025.
Many people do fear that a war with Iran could escalate into Armageddon, but the nature of that fear depends entirely on who you ask. A notable segment of the American population, especially among evangelical Christians, interprets a war with Iran as a step toward the biblical end times. For many others, the fear is not about biblical prophecy but about the real-world consequences of a wider war and the impact on energy, the cornerstone of modern civilization.
A June 2025 poll found that a slight majority of Americans (51%) feared the tensions between the U.S. and Iran could lead to a World War III. The fear of an “Armageddon” with Iran is real, but it is driven by two very different worldviews: one that sees it as a catastrophic failure of diplomacy, and another that sees it as the fulfillment of divine will.
We have zealot Jews and Christians who want to conspire to destroy the Dome of the Rock so they can rebuild the next Temple, ushering in Armageddon. According to the Book of Revelation in the New Testament of the Christian Bible, Armageddon is the prophesied location of a gathering of armies for a battle during the end-of-the-world scenario, interpreted as either a literal or a symbolic location. In Islamic theology, Armageddon is also mentioned in Hadith as the Greatest Armageddon or Al-Malhama Al-Kubra (the great battle).
Megiddo is a fascinating site of twenty cities constructed directly on top of one another. It has been inhabited continuously from 3000 to 300 BC and lies at a strategic junction of north-south and east-west roads. Whoever had control of Megiddo had control of one of the major trade routes of antiquity. There were no coins produced by Egypt until the Ptolemy and the conquest by Alexander the Great. Likewise, there was no coinage of Judah. This is a reproduction of a Jasper Seal of Shema discovered at Megiddo in 1903.
Many battles have been fought at Megiddo. One great Battle of Megiddo occurred in 609 BC when Pharaoh Necho II of Egypt joined his allies, involving the Neo-Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians. This required passing through territory controlled by the Kingdom of Judah. The Judaean king, Josiah, refused to let the Egyptians pass. The Judaean forces battled the Egyptians at Megiddo, resulting in Josiah’s death, and his kingdom then became a vassal state under Egypt. The battle is recorded in the Hebrew Bible, the Greek 1 Esdras, and the writings of Jewish historian Josephus. There is always a chance of losing whenever there is war. This is how the arrogant always fall.
There remains considerable debate about whether this is literally or symbolically a Great Battle to be fought on the plane of Armageddon, overlooked by Megiddo, which made sense in those days since it was a major link between the East and West, or are we looking at that as just symbolic of the world ar large.
In 2024, in his Knesset speech, Netanyahu said: “I’ve been warning about Iran for 30 years.” It was reported on March 3rd, during a visit to a site struck by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated: “We read in this week’s Torah portion, ‘Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.”
In 1 Samuel 15:2-3, God gives King Saul a specific, direct order to carry out this command. The prophet Samuel relays the message:
“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. ‘”
The Amalekites were a people group in the Hebrew Bible, presented as the archetypal and perpetual enemy of the Israelites. Their story is less about a distinct archaeological culture and more about a theological symbol of opposition to God’s purposes. According to biblical genealogies, the Amalekites descend from Amalek, kinging them to the Edomites and places them within the extended family of Abraham, making their hostility toward Israel a form of “brotherly” betrayal.
They are described as a semi-nomadic people inhabiting the Negev and Sinai regions, known for guerrilla-style raids. The Amalekites are defined almost entirely by their hostility to Israel. Over time, Jewish tradition transformed Amalek from a specific nation into a symbol of evil itself. There is no direct archaeological or extra-biblical evidence confirming the Amalekites actually existed as a distinct historical people. Scholars suggest the biblical portrayal is likely “blanket” designation for various hostile desert groups or a literary device to embody the theological concept of opposition to God.
In contemporary political and religious rhetoric, some Israeli leaders, most notably Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have explicitly compared the Iranian regime to the biblical Amalekites. However, Muhammad and Islam came roughly 2,500 years after Judaism. By no account, can the Iranians be the fabeled Islam, which did not emerge until the 7th century AD, long after the codification of the Hebrew Bible and the development of rabbinic Judaism.
Categories:Iran
Secretary of State Marco Rubio appeared on Fox News last night for a discussion of current geopolitical events. The segment starts with an open-ended question about updates to the terror plot surrounding RAF Fairford base in the U.K against U.S. military targets.
Secretary Rubio was very measured in his response, noting he could not discuss too much and did not want to get out ahead of the investigation; however, he did confirm the terrorism plot “clearly involves the hands of a foreign actor.” People in American and the U.K are puzzled by the British authority position to release the suspects on bail, less than 24 hours after they were arrested. Everything surrounding this event is very weird. WATCH:
.
.
Posted inBig Government, CIA, Conspiracy ?, Death Threats, European Union, Iran, Islam, Jihad, Military, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain
Europe asks China to voluntarily limit exports (mostly autos) to the European Union. Europe doesn’t want to get China angry with them about this issue. However, China is sending massive numbers of EVs into Europe. Europe is losing its auto business. I couldn’t figure out why the EU didn’t take an aggressive/confrontational position.
Then I was reminded. Europe cannot force Beijing through a trade action (tariffs, ban, EU limit etc.) because Beijing might stop selling them EV carbon credits. If the European automakers cannot purchase Chinese EV carbon credit certificates, the fines levied by Brussels against gasoline powered autos will destroy the EU auto business.
Think about this for a while, then read the EU media report:
EuroNews – Brussels is pressing Beijing to accept quotas on Chinese exports as negotiations enter their final stretch, with the EU threatening trade measures unless tangible progress is made by next month.
Brussels and Beijing are fighting over quotas that would limit Chinese imports to the EU market, as the Europeans seek to rebalance their trade relationship with China, Euronews has learned.
Both started intense negotiations last June over EU and Chinese access to each other’s markets, with an October deadline set by the European Commission to reach “tanglible” results. However, China is pushing hard against the EU’s attempts to protect its market.
According to one person familiar with the matter, the Commission, which is negotiating on behalf of the 27 EU countries on trade issues, wants China to accept quotas on specific products. However, it is unclear how China would accept and respect such quotas.
According to media reports, so-called “voluntary export restrictions” have been pushed by the Commission for electric vehicles. But Beijing’s trade minister rejected them in a statement earlier this month.
If China accepted such a system of restrictions, it would mean that it voluntarily limits its exports to the EU on the basis of a deal negotiated with the Commission, sparing the EU from adopting defensive trade measures that might be seen as an aggressive move by China.
Technical negotiations are in their final stretch as the October deadline is approaching. (read more)
It’s a remarkable mess, no?
Europe wants Beijing to voluntarily limit the number of EVs that come into Europe from China, in order to save their auto sector from complete collapse. However, Europe cannot force Beijing to limit the number of EVs that come into Europe from China, or Beijing might stop selling them carbon credit certificates that will result in fines to the EU automakers that will collapse the EU auto sector.
You would think that Europe would just get rid of the net-zero carbon regulations until they can stabilize their market and get back to a reasonable energy policy. Alas, that would mean reversing decades of climate change legislation. The preferred route is to ask Beijing to limit hurting them.
Again, think about this.
Madness.
Posted inAuto Sector, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Economy, energy, European Union, Germany, Trade Deal, Uncategorized
.President Trump is looking for an AI Czar. Someone who will put U.S. interests above all else; use exceptional judgement; can understand the value of the technology to national defense; can see through the political smoke and mirrors that surrounds the AI narrative and simultaneously possess excellent discernment.
The iron ore from Minnesota combined with a new steel works in Iowa. GOOD STUFF!
Today, President Donald J. Trump announced one of the largest steel plants in American history: a $15 billion Mesabi Metallics mill in Iowa. The project will create 1,750 permanent Iowa jobs, support up to 6,000 construction jobs, and is projected to add $95 billion to the U.S. economy over the next decade.
The mill will produce 7.5 million tons of steel per year in its first phase, rising to about ten million tons, using iron ore from Mesabi Metallics’ newly opened Minnesota mine — the first new iron ore mine in the United States in 50 years. {MORE}
The Question and Answer session begins at 22:40. WATCH:
.
Posted inDonald Trump, Economy, Election 2026, energy, EPA, President Trump, Trade Deal, Uncategorized
This sounds absolutely nuts to me, but the U.K police have released on bail the five suspected terrorists caught outside RAF Fairford military base. Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor delivered a statement outside Scotland Yard explaining the current status. WATCH:
“We have, as you would expect, ensured that our protective security advice and posture remain commensurate to the threat. But be assured, we are considering this from every possible angle, including that this may be actively committed by proxies or individuals, either knowingly or unknowingly, working on behalf of a foreign state.“
According to the UK Daily Mirror, “The farmer who told police about the suspected RAF Fairford terror plot has claimed she saw up to 10 masked people by the base – as police said five men arrested will be bailed. The woman, in her 50s, from Whelford, alerted police after seeing three vans blocking a road near the base, which has been used by the US to bomb missile sites in Iran, while on her way back from a party. Five British nationals were then arrested in the early hours of Sunday morning on suspicion of explosives offences and later terrorism. The farmer who dialed 999 has now claimed there were “definitely more than five” and estimated she saw between eight and 10 people with their faces covered and wearing “slim-fitting clothes”. {source}
UK NEWS – Five men arrested over a suspected bomb plot near an RAF base have been released on bail, the Metropolitan Police has said.
The suspects, who are all British nationals aged in their twenties and from London, were arrested over potential terror offences in Whelford, Gloucestershire, in the early hours of Sunday.
They were arrested on suspicion of explosives offences and later on suspicion of terrorism offences, after a villager dialed 999 when she saw three vans and a group of masked men near the base.
Dozens of homes had to be evacuated as bomb disposal teams were called in and a cordon remains in place. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood said on Monday afternoon that Whelford residents will shortly be able to return home.
Assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor told reporters outside New Scotland Yard: “I can confirm that following extensive interviews and inquiries, the five men who were arrested are being released on police bail this afternoon.
“To be very clear, this does not mean that the investigation is over. They are subject to stringent conditions on their movement and contact with others. They absolutely remain under investigation as we explore multiple lines of inquiry.”
The five suspects are a 24-year-old from Camden, north London; three men aged 23, 24 and 25 from Westminster, central London; and one man aged 24 from Willesden, north-west London. (read more)
Posted inBig Government, Big Stupid Government, Iran, Military, Terrorist Attacks, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain
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
