Governments do not spend years planning nationwide crisis simulations for events they consider impossible. They prepare for scenarios they increasingly believe are plausible. That is what caught my attention about the latest report from Politico Europe. France is reportedly organizing a nationwide tabletop exercise in the second half of 2027 to simulate a catastrophic electrical blackout involving the military, multiple ministries, and the operators of the national power grid. The purpose is to determine how long it would take to restore electricity while maintaining the continuity of the state itself.
This is no longer merely about restoring electricity. The planning documents reportedly focus on preserving “the continuity of the state” and ensuring access to generators, medicines, telecommunications equipment, emergency supplies, law enforcement equipment, and even critical raw materials. Governments only begin making lists like that when they are thinking beyond a temporary inconvenience and toward systemic disruption.
Officials point to several justifications. They cite the massive Spain-Portugal blackout of 2025, cyberattacks against European infrastructure, record-breaking heat, devastating wildfires, and the growing vulnerability of modern electrical grids. Every one of those concerns is legitimate on its own. The problem is that when you begin stacking one crisis upon another, governments naturally begin expanding emergency powers and contingency planning.
People have a dangerous habit of assuming the lights will always come back on. Modern civilization exists because electricity exists. Remove power for several days and grocery stores cannot replenish food. Fuel pumps stop operating. Telecommunications become unreliable. Banking systems slow or cease functioning. ATMs run dry. Water treatment plants struggle. Hospitals switch to backup generators that themselves depend on fuel deliveries. Supply chains that operate with almost no inventory begin breaking down in a matter of days.
Europe has spent years aggressively restructuring its energy system while simultaneously increasing dependence upon digital infrastructure. The more sophisticated society becomes, the more vulnerable it also becomes. Every layer of technology creates another potential point of failure. Whether the cause is cyber warfare, sabotage, cascading technical failures, terrorism, or extreme weather, the result is the same. Society quickly discovers that modern life is built upon assumptions of uninterrupted power.
What interests me most is the timing. Why 2027? Governments generally react to past crises. They seldom dedicate enormous resources preparing for hypothetical national emergencies unless they believe the probability is no longer remote. France is not simply planning another emergency exercise. According to the reporting, this scenario involves the military, energy operators, ministries, and national resilience planners asking how the French state itself would continue functioning during a prolonged nationwide blackout. That is a very different exercise than preparing for a hurricane or localized storm.
Perhaps one should also ask why so many Western governments are simultaneously expanding civil defense programs, encouraging emergency stockpiles, strengthening critical infrastructure planning, and discussing resilience with increasing urgency. These initiatives are emerging across Europe, not in isolation.
Governments rarely invest this much time preparing for events they consider unlikely. Perhaps the most important question is not whether France can survive a blackout simulation. The real question is why European governments increasingly believe these scenarios deserve national rehearsals. When governments begin preparing for the unimaginable, history suggests the unimaginable has often moved much closer than the public realizes.
The standard explanation is that China is buying gold because it wants to destroy the dollar. That makes a dramatic headline, but it confuses diversification with replacement and political ambition with market reality. The People’s Bank of China increased its reported gold reserves by 640,000 fine troy ounces in July, nearly 20 metric tons. Holdings rose from 75.44 million to 76.08 million ounces, marking the largest monthly addition since October 2023 and extending the buying campaign to a twenty-first consecutive month.
The pace has accelerated from 160,000 ounces in March to 480,000 in June and 640,000 in July. China’s gold reserves were valued at $306.35 billion at the end of July, but this remains only a fraction of the country’s total reserve position.
If Beijing believed the dollar was about to disappear, why would it continue to maintain trillions of dollars in foreign-exchange reserves and operate within a world trading system still financed largely in dollars? China is not preparing for a theatrical dollar collapse. It is preparing for a world in which reserves can be frozen, payment systems can be weaponized, and sovereign debt can no longer be treated as politically neutral.
Gold is not another government’s liability, it cannot be defaulted upon by its issuer, and physical bullion held within national control cannot be electronically frozen by a foreign treasury department.
The seizure of Russian assets changed the calculation for every central bank outside the Western alliance. China would be negligent if it ignored that precedent. Beijing has watched Washington restrict access to technology, impose financial sanctions, pressure international banks, and use the dollar-based clearing system as an instrument of foreign policy.
This does not mean China is buying gold because it expects to launch a war tomorrow. It means the political risk attached to foreign reserve assets has increased, and central banks respond to changes in risk long before politicians publicly admit that the rules have changed.
Gold provides insurance against confiscation and monetary fragmentation, but insurance is not the same thing as an operational currency. China still needs dollar liquidity to manage trade, stabilize the yuan, support domestic institutions, and navigate periods of international panic.
This is the part the dollar-collapse crowd refuses to understand. A country can reduce its exposure to U.S. sovereign debt while the dollar simultaneously strengthens against other currencies. Capital does not choose between perfection and failure. It chooses among available alternatives.
During a global crisis, private capital can flee Europe, Japan, emerging markets, and China itself while moving into dollars and gold at the same time. The dollar benefits from liquidity, collateral demand, dollar-denominated obligations, and the depth of American financial markets, while gold benefits from declining confidence in governments and the political neutrality of sovereign reserves.
There is no contradiction. The dollar is the principal currency of the existing financial system, while gold is insurance against the abuse or eventual failure of that system. Nor does China’s accumulation prove that the yuan is ready to replace the dollar. A reserve currency requires more than trade agreements and political declarations. It requires deep and accessible capital markets, reliable convertibility, enforceable property rights, transparent institutions, and confidence that foreign capital can enter and leave without becoming trapped by government decree.
China faces a heavily indebted property sector, pressure on local-government finances, weak domestic confidence, and recurring private demand to move capital abroad. Official gold purchases should not be confused with a vote of confidence in China’s domestic economy. The state is acquiring an external reserve asset while many private holders remain concerned about the yuan, property values, government policy, and the freedom to move capital.
China may buy gold while Chinese private capital seeks dollars, foreign real estate, overseas equities, or any structure that reduces exposure to domestic controls. We should also stop pretending that every increase in central-bank gold holdings automatically drives the market in a straight line. Gold can correct even while China is buying, just as it can rise when official purchases slow.
China’s purchases confirm an existing shift in reserve management that accelerated after sanctions transformed sovereign reserves into political instruments. They do not prove that the dollar will vanish, that the yuan will replace it, or that gold must rise every month.
The weaponization of the dollar encourages nations to accumulate gold while the absence of a credible replacement preserves the dollar’s central role. China is prepared; the models consistently indicate that once the last domino falls, China will be on top.
The July employment report is not the beginning of a new cycle, nor is it some sudden deterioration that appeared without warning. The labor market has been weakening beneath the surface for quite some time, while the headline numbers and constant revisions allowed the financial press to maintain the illusion of resilience.
Nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000 in July, compared with expectations for an increase of approximately 80,000. Yet the more important figure is not July alone, for May and June were revised downward by a combined 103,000 jobs, reducing average employment growth over the past three months to only 20,000 per month. This is precisely why the initial government number should never be treated as economic truth, since the politically convenient headline receives all the attention while the revisions appear later when the public has already moved on.
The unemployment rate declined from 4.2% to 4.1%, but this does not demonstrate an improving labor market. Labor participation has declined by 0.7 percentage point since January, while the employment-to-population ratio has fallen by 0.5 point, confirming that people are leaving the labor force rather than finding productive employment. The unemployment rate can decline even while the actual employment situation deteriorates when there are fewer labor participants.
Local government education lost 50,000 positions, retail trade lost 19,000, and financial activities lost another 14,000. Health care continued to add jobs, but even there the pace slowed, while manufacturing, construction, information, professional services, transportation, and leisure showed little expansion.
The decline in financial employment is particularly important because that sector has lost 121,000 jobs since May 2025. This reflects a contraction in credit-related activity and rising financing costs, which cannot be separated from the growing sovereign-debt problem.
Wall Street will naturally interpret this report as a reason for the Federal Reserve to abandon a possible September rate increase. That interpretation confuses monetary policy with the business cycle, for lower rates cannot compel businesses to hire when confidence has collapsed, nor can they reverse taxation, regulation, geopolitical uncertainty, or declining consumer purchasing power. If lower interest rates alone created prosperity, Europe and Japan would have produced the strongest economic expansions in modern history.
Wages increased only two cents in July and 3.2% from a year earlier, which is no reprieve for workers grappling with the ever-rising cost of living. Inflation does not need to accelerate every month to destroy purchasing power, because prices that have already risen do not magically return to their previous levels when the official inflation rate slows.
The Federal Reserve is trapped between weakening employment and inflation that remains above its stated target, but this is not merely a monetary policy problem. It is the consequence of fiscal mismanagement, excessive government borrowing, geopolitical instability, and the transfer of capital away from productive private investment toward government debt and politically directed spending. Cutting rates may temporarily support financial assets, but it will not restore confidence in the real economy.
The July report merely confirms what hiring plans, job openings, falling quits, downward payroll revisions, and deteriorating participation have been warning for months. The employment situation has not suddenly turned negative, for the trend was already in motion, and the latest data simply make it more difficult for the government and the financial press to deny what the private sector has understood for some time.
I warned previously that the migration policy of open boarders would become the core issue that would eventually break the EU into pieces. The indigenous people are the minority in most major cities. But the migrants that were allowed in were NOT there to assimulate and blend into European culture. Instead, they brought their own culture with them to effectively transform Europe.
EU migration policy has now raised the risk of violent civil unrest, which could on the one hand appear as a civil war, it has created a severe political crisis that is deeply dividing the bloc. The evidence points to a breakdown of unity, with member states turning on each other and the far-right using the issue to gain power. This all began with Merkel being a hard-ass against bailing out Greece when the criticism of her was building. She then wanted to personally reverse her own image and opened the gates to the Syrian Refugees. That began the downfall of the EU all for her personal vanity.
A Crisis of Unity, Not Civil War
The core issue isn’t internal armed conflict of one state against another but a “widening rift” between EU member states over how to handle migration. Recent events, such as the migrant surge into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta, have exposed these fractures.
Instead of showing solidarity, some EU nations blamed Spain for the crisis. Italy even temporarily suspended its open-border Schengen agreement with Spain, and 22 out of 27 EU countries backed a call for firmer action, implicitly criticizing Spain’s approach.
This migration is no longer just an economic or social issue; it has become a sharp political weapon of division. This was demonstrated in the immediate aftermath of the Ceuta crisis, where far-right parties used the event to attack the Spanish government and call for stricter measures.
The severe political fallout is widely attributed to how migration policy has been politicized and used as a tool for electoral gain. The surge in support for far-right parties has clearly eroded the bloc’s capacity for coordinated action. Their success on anti-immigration platforms has forced more centrist parties to adopt similar, tougher stances to retain voters. To the outrage of Brussels, their failed policies and vision have given rock-solid support in Germany to AFD.
Worse still, they have adopted a policy of interfering in elections from Romania and Italy to Hungary and Germany and we should not forget their shenanigans to prevent Scotland from separating from England. As will any government entity, they will violate whatever law when it come to a threat against their power. After the EU interfered in Hungary to remove Orban, Ursula von der Leyen sought to completely revise the foundation of the EU and repeal the law of the land to retain absolute power.
Ursula von der Leyen, an unelected bureaucrat who has never stood for any public election, has the audacity to call Putin a dictator who at least stands for an election. After she got rid of Viktor Orban, she then has sought to create an absolute dictatorship in Europe. She is calling now for effectively that no single country should block the EU again. She had completely reversed the promise of a majority vote to prevent any single country from dominating another.
What von der Leyen has proposed in response to the situation is moving towards qualified majority voting on foreign policy matters, a reform that would prevent any single nation from vetoing EU decisions. Hungary stood against war with Russia, which the EU is determined to create, but also against the massive influx of migrats that is undermining the very culture of Europe.
Whatever decision she has made has been to destroy European culture. The EU has invested heavily in “externalizing” its borders, relying on third countries like Morocco to stop migrants before they reach Europe. However, this backfired in Ceuta, where it was suggested Morocco may have allowed the surge as leverage in a diplomatic dispute, creating a “new problem” where Europe’s “gatekeeper” holds significant influence.
The EU’s new migration pact, designed to share responsibility, is struggling before it’s even fully implemented. A central part of the plan relies on member states voluntarily relocating at least 30,000 asylum seekers. However, Poland, Austria, Belgium, and Sweden have already refused to accept any, signaling a “painful” path ahead. This deep resistance to burden-sharing is a core reason the policy has become so divisive.
In truth, the EU’s migration policy has backfired in a political sense, leading to deep divisions, a rise in nationalist sentiment, and a crisis of confidence in European solidarity. While the term “civil war” typically applies to an internal political divide like the English or American civil war, it is not accurate for this situation. Here the greater risk is a violent outbreak between the migrants and the indigenous people of Europe. That took place in Philadelphia with the migration of Irish during an economic decline taking jobs from Americans. This is the risk now from 2026 into 2928.
I have warned that this is not a unique forecast. Roman Emperor Valens (364-378AD) let the Goths enter the Roman Empire assuming they would defend Rome against the advancing Huns. He trained the Goths in Roman military tactics, and because they were of a completely different culture, they did NOT assimalate into Roman society. The Goths then turned on the Romans as they were really a separate class in retaliation. Valens met his death on August 9th, 378 AD, in one of the greatest military catastrophes ever suffered by the Roman Legions – the Battle of Aadrianopolis. Hos body was never found. This is the risk that Europe faces – internal conflict between cultures.
The political fallout from the migrant crisis is most visible in how it’s turning EU member states against each other, creating a toxic atmosphere where national interests are consistently prioritized over European solidarity. This will eventually lead to the breakup of the EU as early as 2029 and most certainly it will NOT exist beyond 2032.
Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama are supported by the Muslim Brotherhood directly. Both El-Sayed and Barack Obama campaigned for Senate in the mid-term election (BO ’06, ES ’26), and both Barack Obama and El-Sayed planned to run for higher office in 2nd year of their freshman term as senator.
The media now begin their fawning endeavor as the Muslim Brotherhood backed Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed tries to moderate himself in the image of Barack Hussein Obama. I find it a little revealing that El-Sayed’s wife is a doctor who refuses to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients (cash only), as El-Sayed campaigns on Medicare for all. Of course, don’t look for the media to point this out during questioning.
Notice also the Middle East nations that El-Sayed criticizes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan) are the Mid-East nations who have pushed back or banned the Muslim Brotherhood. This is very revealing for those who walk the political deep weeds. By the way, he’s a paper doctor; a Phd, not an MD. WATCH:
[Transcript] – KRISTEN WELKER: And joining me now is Michigan’s Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed. Dr. El-Sayed, welcome to Meet the Press.
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Thanks for having me.
KRISTEN WELKER: Thank you so much for being here and congratulations. Let’s talk about your victory this week. You narrowly defeated Congresswoman Haley Stevens. And when you actually add up all of the votes, the vote totals that went to Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, a majority of voters actually ended up voting for candidates who are more moderate than you. So how do you win over those voters who voted for someone else?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: Well, thank you, Kristen. Really, we’re just grateful for everybody who participated. And the overwhelming recognition of the vote tallies is that 500,000 more Democrats voted than did Republicans in that election. And if that happens, we are going to win in a landslide. Now I know that we had it out with a very tough primary. There were a lot of issues that were discussed and differences that were identified and fixated on. But I will tell you this, that all of us agree that our differences are far smaller than what we agree on. And what we agree on is that Donald Trump has been an existential threat to our democracy. He is costing us jobs. He is costing us more at almost every aspect of our lives, whether it’s our gas, our groceries, or our health care, and that Mike Rogers is going to be nothing more than a rubber stamp on Donald Trump’s disastrous economic and foreign policies. And so this is an opportunity for us to come together to mend fences, to build together the coalition that is going to defeat Mike Rogers in November and defeat Trumpism over the next two years.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, let me ask you about some news that we’re learning this morning. Local outlets reporting that you spoke to former President Barack Obama on the phone. I know you’re not going to give me every detail of the call. But what was the crux of his message to you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Well, Kristen, you’re right. I like to keep private conversations private. But it was a really warm and inspiring conversation. I’ve got to be honest with you. I never saw myself ever able to run for public office. I literally told former President Bill Clinton that at my college graduation, in which I was the senior speaker and he was the main speaker. And I then watched the next year Barack Hussein Obama run for and win the presidency. I watched him serve with a level of class, a level of elegance that we could only pine for now. So I really enjoyed the conversation. I was grateful for his advice. It was very warm and very inviting. And I know that he knows the critical role that Michigan is going to play in holding Trump accountable, in winning back the Senate, and in building forward the future that we need.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Is he going to campaign with you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Look, I really hope so. And it was a really good conversation about what we need to do to be able to win. And obviously, this is somebody who knows a lot about winning Michigan.
KRISTEN WELKER:
And just to be clear, do you anticipate he’ll show up on the campaign trail with you? Is that one of the broad topics you all discussed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Look, we talked a lot about what it’ll take to win. Obviously, his presence here in Michigan would mean so much to the coalition that helped elect him. So I hope that we get to campaign together.
KRISTEN WELKER:
One of the big issues you ran on, of course, was Medicare for All. So let’s talk about that. You served as a public health official in Michigan. You even co-authored a book making the case for Medicare for All. Senator Bernie Sanders also campaigned on it as a presidential candidate back in 2016. Ten years later, this idea still does not have a majority support in Congress. If you were to win in November, Dr. El-Sayed, how do you make Medicare for All a reality when, so far, it has not had enough support?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Well, Kristen, I’ve been up and down my state. And everywhere I go, people say the same thing. It just shouldn’t be this hard. And one of the big things that they bring up is the fact that they’re worried about having to see a doctor if they get sick and what that’ll mean for them. The median deductible, meaning the money that you pay to get the health care you already thought you paid for every single month, is about $4,500 for a family of four. That and considering the fact that the median income is about $80,000 means that you’re going to lose more than a whole paycheck just to actually pay for the health care you thought you already paid for. Our system has only gotten less and less effective, less efficient over time as we’ve watched health insurance corporations collude with big hospitals and the pharmaceutical industry to figure out how to pick more and more of our dollars out of our pocket to put into theirs. We don’t have to live like this. We have an opportunity to guarantee cradle to grave health care from the moment that somebody is born to the moment that they expire, God willing, at 120 years of life after a long, healthy life in their sleep peacefully. And it would guarantee them the health care that they need independent of the circumstances, wherever they needed to go. That is the kind of security we’ve never had in this country and is the kind of security that the health care corporations have denied us. So we’re watching more people support Medicare for All every day. We’re watching more elected officials support Medicare for All every day. And in a lot of ways, this campaign was a referendum on whether or not we want healthcare here or bombs somewhere else. And I think the Michigander — the Michigan voter chose health care here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, some Americans worry, though, you can only make Medicare free and universal if you increase taxes. So if you are elected and make this push, would you need to increase taxes?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
As I’ve said across this campaign, I am for taxing billionaires their wealth.
KRISTEN WELKER:
What about people who —
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
And —
KRISTEN WELKER:
make less than a —
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
— for the —
KRISTEN WELKER:
a billion and less —
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
average person —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— than a million dollars, though, Dr. El-Sayed? What about people making less than a million dollars?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
So for the average person, when you look at your W2, if you’re an employee who gets paid every two weeks or four weeks, after you pay your taxes, the next biggest check that comes off the top of your pay stub is to your health insurance company. So imagine instead of paying that to your health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million a year, instead you paid a little bit more in taxes for healthcare that you wouldn’t lose if you lost your job or turned 26 or got married or got divorced. I think all of us would be a lot more interested in that kind of a system if we knew that our healthcare would be free at the point of care and would be free without having to worry about losing it, in general. So there’s an opportunity here, I think, to trade what we give to a big corporation, who gets to decide who we get to see and who we don’t, for a little bit more paid into FICA. And I think that’s a trade that’s worth making. I think the broader public understands that that’s a trade worth making considering how many people are holding medical debt, a third of all Michigan households right now.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Just to be very clear, you’re describing this trade-off. You are effectively acknowledging that people making less than a million dollars could see their taxes go up. I just want to be very clear. Is that a yes?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
I’m saying that we’d be paying for healthcare in a different way. Instead of paying a health insurance company, whose CEO makes $20 million, I would much rather pay for durable healthcare into a government, which, of course, we all know provides healthcare for seniors who need healthcare the most. So if I’m trading paying a CEO to make more money or paying a government to guarantee me healthcare, I’m picking the latter every time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
All right. Let’s talk about another big issue that dominated the campaign and will undoubtedly be a big topic of conversation in the general election: your criticism of Israel. President Trump had this to say after your win this week. I’m going to play it and get your reaction on the other side. Take a look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:
He doesn’t love Israel. He doesn’t love Jewish people. He hates them. He hates them with a passion that burns in his heart.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
What’s your reaction to that, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
I love and revere Judaism and the Jewish people. I believe they’re a light unto the world. I grew up in a community that had a large Jewish population. I was so grateful to get to be invited to the seder and to shul and to bat and bar mitzvahs. I’m really honored for what I learned and got to share with my Jewish sisters and brothers. But they are not the same as AIPAC in Israel. AIPAC is an organization that spent, what, $30 million to beat me so that we could — they could have one more vote in the U.S. Senate to guarantee that our taxpayer dollars would be sent abroad to subsidize a foreign government’s military to do the worst things: genocide, apartheid, take us into wars we have no business fighting. And I’m running for Senate here in Michigan. I believe that we have a responsibility here in Michigan. I want our tax dollars spent to provide good schools, to pay for healthcare, to rebuild our roads here in Michigan rather than it being sent abroad to subsidize foreign militaries. That’s not just Israel, by the way. That is also Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Pakistan. So I believe in international law. I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for all people. I believe in a process that allows a free Palestinian people and free Jewish Israeli people to come together around what they believe the ultimate peace should look like. And I believe that our tax dollars should be spent on the things that are needed here in Michigan rather than to subsidize foreign militaries abroad.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Let me follow up with you on that point. You’ve said, you’ve just reiterated that you would rule out unconditional foreign military aid to Israel. Just to be very clear, is there any scenario where you would approve more aid to Israel, more military aid in any form?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Well, if we were in a scenario where there were equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian people and Jewish Israel people and they had come together to achieve that ultimate peace, and there were circumstances in which that was guaranteed, there would be a very, very different circumstance. But for right now, we are in a situation where we are continuously subsidizing the military of a state that has behaved in ways that can only be described as rogue. You think about the genocide in Gaza. You think about the continued attempt to annex southern Lebanon. These are things that we cannot subsidize considering the fact that we have kids who need better schools and better roads and bridges and better healthcare here in America.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You’re saying that you would not support sending aid to Israel, which was attacked by Hamas. But you have also said that you would support sending military aid to Ukraine, which was, of course, attacked and invaded by Russia. Where do you draw the line there?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Well, in Ukraine, you’re talking about attacks from a leader of a neighboring sovereign country, who clearly violated international law in attempting to breach the sovereignty of the Ukrainian public. That is conditional on that circumstance. We have been offering unconditional foreign military aid to Israel independent of the circumstances for years and years and years. And might I say, it’s not just Israel. It’s also Egypt. It’s also Jordan. It’s also Saudi Arabia. That’s the difference. It’s about the conditions. So when we’re talking about taking on Putin and his violation of international law, I do believe we have a responsibility to uphold international law and, therefore, to support Ukraine in its efforts.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You have said, and I want to talk about your political identity now. You have said you’re not a Democratic Socialist. You were backed by Senator Bernie Sanders, who, of course, proudly says he is a Democratic Socialist. You even attended events hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America. Where do you differ from Senator Sanders? Is there one policy issue where you can point out a difference?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Capitalism. You know, I’m a scientist and I believe in good, thoughtful, evidence-based solutions to problems. You know, when it comes to the question of capitalism, allocating capital based on supply and demand at the level at which it’s supposed to work, where you have free entry and exit into markets, you know, I support that idea. I understand right now, though, that we don’t live under capitalism. We live under corporatism. You have huge corporations that have used their power, in effect, to try and buy politicians, so that those politicians will turn around and help them use government to protect their position in markets. That is anti-capitalist. And look, you can go back to Adam Smith, the guy who coined the idea of capitalism, and he understood that the biggest risk to capitalism was not government regulation. It was always monopoly and oligopoly. If you think about the circumstances that we live under right now, the power of the biggest players in almost every market, both to squeeze labor to pay us less and to raise prices so that we have to pay more, that has been anti-capitalist on its own terms. And so it’s not that you have to be a socialist to believe that the government has a role in protecting a market or guaranteeing us health care or fixing our roads and bridges or providing us good schools. It’s that you have to understand what capitalism is and how it works.
KRISTEN WELKER:
I want to give you an opportunity to respond to some of the other attacks against you. This is an ad by the Republican Party. Take a look.
[BEGIN TAPE]
CAMPAIGN AD:
Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed is the most radical Senate candidate in America.
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
I’m pretty damn dangerous!
CAMPAIGN AD:
El-Sayed pledged support for the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a designated foreign terrorist group.
[END TAPE]
KRISTEN WELKER:
“Radical.” “Dangerous.” How do you respond?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED: We always knew they were going to go here. I mean, notice how they chose to use the, my full name in echoes to exactly what they did against President Obama. At the end of the day, it’s not radical to believe that people should be able to afford their groceries. It’s not radical to believe that you should have health care in this country. It’s not radical to believe that you don’t think the president should be able to deny elections or make $2.2 billion off of his role in office. It’s not radical to believe that all of us should be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Those are the things that I’ve been fighting for. I believe in an America where all of us can come together, to build together a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Now they’re going to try and paint me as a certain thing, given my name. But I also think it’s important for us to recognize that America has a long history of embracing. America is a lot bigger than very small people like Donald Trump or JD Vance or Mike Rogers want to make it out to be. And so I’m grateful for all that America has given me and I’m grateful for the opportunity now to put myself out there and ask my fellow Michiganders for their stake in our democracy to be able to build an America that’s more just, that’s more equitable, that’s more sustainable, that’s more empowering, that’s more American that the vision that Donald Trump and JD Vance and Mike Rogers have for it.
KRISTEN WELKER:
You know, you’ve faced scrutiny for campaigning with socialist streamer, Hasan Piker, who has made a series of inflammatory comments, as you well know, including saying America deserved 9/11, describing Hamas as a lesser evil than Israel. Do you plan to continue to campaign with Hasan Piker in the general election campaign?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Look, I’m less concerned now with who I’m campaigning with and a lot more concerned about who I’m campaigning to. We’ve got a lot of work to do to continue to build the coalition that’s going to beat Mike Rogers. And I’m looking —
KRISTEN WELKER:
Would you welcome him —
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
forward to continue —
KRISTEN WELKER:
though —
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
to —
KRISTEN WELKER:
— on the campaign trail with you?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Like I said, I’m a lot more focused on who I’m campaigning to. So I think we have this notion sometimes on shows like this that we cannot or should not talk to certain groups of people. And I’ll tell you that the three million people who listen to Hasan are people I want to make sure understand that there’s a pathway into our politics around getting money out of politics so we can get money back in pockets and pass Medicare for All. And so I’m going to continue to have the conversations with those folks who we desperately need to reach out, just like I’m going to continue to have conversations with seniors in senior homes, folks up north, folks in Detroit, folks in Grand Rapids. So, again, I’m a lot more focused on who I’m campaigning to rather than who I might campaign with.
KRISTEN WELKER:
When asked about Hasan Piker’s comments on 9/11, Senator Bernie Sanders called it a dumb statement. Do you agree? Do you disavow those comments that America deserved 9/11?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Of course. Of course. It was a dumb statement. And, of course, I think Hasan, himself, would say that was a dumb statement. He disavowed it. So yes. America didn’t deserve 9/11. But, you know, to sit here and play gotcha politics with a dumb thing somebody said out of context, that they disavowed themselves, to say, “Oh, well, what does that mean about what you think?” I want to be held accountable for what I say and what I do rather than this idea that we’re so stuck in cancel culture that all of us agreed was a bad idea back in 2020, but we seem to want to bring back.
KRISTEN WELKER:
We are out of time. But I have to ask you before I let you go. If you win, you will be the very first Muslim to serve in the Senate. What would that mean to you, Dr. El-Sayed?
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Honestly, I haven’t really thought that much about it. But it’s more about what it means to America. You know, this is a place that some people wanted to define as a lot smaller than it is. I’ve been Abdul in Michigan my whole life. And I know that people are big-hearted and open-minded. That’s the America I’ve always seen. And once again, Michiganders get to prove just how big-hearted and open-minded we really are against the small vision that people like Donald Trump want to perpetrate on us. So it really is about proving out the America that America has always been, this place that embraces people beyond differences and in faith or ethnicity, to come together around the ideals that bind us here.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, thank you so very much for joining us. We really appreciate it.
DR. ABDUL EL-SAYED:
Thank you Kristen.
{END TRANSCRIPT}
Slowly she builds her performance outrage, methodically working through the talking points afore her. Full dramatic acting on display. Lips pursed, bladed eyebrows angled, contempt tone triggered and the intent obvious.
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss Mexican poop lettuce, Mexico poop peppers, Illegal Alien measles spread and the weaponized information from health ‘administrators’ around the COVID-19 vaccine. Obviously, with Media Patron Saint Anthony Fauci facing scrutiny, Margaret Brennan defends Fauci as she would if the Lightbringer, Chicago Jesus was disrespected. Combative video and Transcript below:
[Transcript] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the Director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. Good morning to you, doctor.
NIH DIRECTOR DR. JAY BHATTACHARYA: Good morning.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we should mention you are also helping to run the CDC until the new director is sworn in as well.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Until next Wednesday, yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Until next Wednesday. So let me ask you about a number of things that I think people at home are worried about, particularly around the food supply. The cyclospora outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce from Mexico is now in 15 states. There were two deaths this week due to it. Yesterday, USDA issued an alert for a range of products that may have salmonella, including meat and poultry. 27 states are affected by salmonella, possibly linked to jalapeños, but cilantro, red onion, avocado, also listed in the CDC notice. Albertsons, a grocery store, just recalled some items. There’s risk of salmonella in eggs in Texas, according to the CDC, and then you have the screwworm outbreak affecting beef. This is overwhelming for someone going into a grocery store right now. Why do they seem out of control?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Well, the- the cyclospora outbreak is larger than in normal years. I mean, in normal years there actually is a- cyclospora cases. The- the two deaths that you mentioned, they happened in late July- late- late June, early July, before we identified this source. And so, folks that are listening, can rest assured, the CDC and the FDA are working hard to trace back exactly where these outbreaks are occurring from, intervening with the- the sort of suppliers to make sure that they don’t- and doing recalls to make sure that the disease doesn’t- the, you know, condition doesn’t spread. I mean, it’s tough. You go to grocery store, you buy lettuce, and you say, “Okay, can I buy the lettuce?”
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: And what I say to folks listening, we’re working hard to make sure that the contaminated sources don’t get onto the shelves. And if you’re worried, you can buy that- buy the lettuce, but make sure you wash it carefully. You don’t eat outer leaves. And if you’re really worried, just, you know, cook your vegetables.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But we’re not hearing from the FDA. I mean, should there be a restriction on imports from central Mexico right now? It seems like a lot of things are tied back.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, I mean, I think the key thing is that when we find a contaminated source, we intervene. I can’t speak for the FDA, thank God. It’s just the NIH and the CDC. But, but, but I can say that- that the folks who I have worked with at the FDA are- they’re great team of folks that are- they’re tracking back and finding the source of these outbreaks. And for cyclospora specifically, it’s complicated because for technical reasons, it’s much- it’s more difficult than if it was just a bacteria to find the exact source. But they’ve done a great job finding it, and they’ve been cooperating with the CDC team that I’ve led the last few months to try to identify the source, and you know, it’s- what we know now is because–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –of that hard work that’s gone on.
MARGARET BRENNAN: –But there are also a number of other health issues, including measles cases now at their highest level in 35 years. The CDC says only 10 U.S. states have measles vaccine coverage rates above the 95% threshold in the prior school year. That is so key because that is, as you know, a marker for basically a way to stop transmission, herd immunity. Do you believe that the federal government needs to make a really full-throated push to tell parents, ‘go get your kids vaccinated with the MMR vaccine?’
DR. BHATTACHARYA: You know, one of the first things I did as CDC director, I think it was back in February of this year, was that there was a big outbreak in South Carolina, and I went on to- went on- I don’t know if TV is the right word, but I went on camera and I recommended that the best way to end the measles outbreak there was to have their parents vaccinate their kids for measles.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: And the outbreak has now ended in South Carolina in part because of that. There’s been a lot of- a lot of outbreaks, not just the United States, but around the world.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: And you know, a lot of that has to do with sort of a collapse in sort of public trust in a lot of science, you know, public health measures that occurred during the pandemic for reasons we can- we can discuss. For me the most important thing is to try to regain that trust.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, but why not- you can have TV ads. You can have something that’s more of a national push. It was notable last week that Secretary Kennedy went on television and did say parents should get kids vaccinated for measles because it’s effective at preventing infection roughly 97% of the time. That was a change for him. He has not always been that clear, as you know. Why not blast that across the airwaves of America?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I mean, I think that I’ve done my best to try to do that. Every time anyone’s asked me about vaccinating their kids for measles, I say exactly that. That the best way to protect your kids from measles is to get the vaccine for- for measles. You know–
MARGARET BRENNAN: This country is going to lose its measles elimination status–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: As did Canada, as did Mexico, as did the UK.
MARGARET BRENNAN : But that’s not acceptable, right? The gold standard science–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: But you know, I think the thing is,
MARGARET BRENNAN: –that MAHA wants to–
DR. BHATTACHARYA:–if you look at the actual- what’s happened, like the- the- there’s specific states where you’ve had these outbreaks. Big, big outbreak in Texas, which has now been addressed. Big outbreak in Arizona and Utah, that’s been addressed. South Carolina, that’s been addressed. Now, what we saw was an outbreak in Virginia, again coming down sharply, and now Pennsylvania- is specific communities of people that have- that are the highest risk that we have to focus on, as well as the broader sort of message that it’s important for children to be vaccinated for the measles if we want to address the measles outbreak.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, that’s why I brought up herd immunity because it puts everyone at risk, right?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Not just people. But on- on this issue, you were down in Atlanta this past week. This is one year since that horrific shooting at CDC headquarters. Officer David Rose was honored this past week. He was killed last year protecting CDC employees from a gunman. And we should note he was a combat veteran, a United States Marine who had just graduated five months prior from the police academy. Three kids left behind. The shooter was motivated by misinformation about the COVID vaccine. That is why he shot over 100 bullets into the windows of the CDC. Is enough being done to counter this kind of misinformation?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I mean, I should start with- I got to talk with Officer Rose’s wife a few months back. The- one of the first things I did is I- you know, to honor him and his sacrifice in protecting the people that work at the CDC, the amazing people who work the CDC was we, you know, renamed the street that leads into the CDC after him, and it was a really nice event. I’ll tell you the- the thing is I want to focus on attention on Officer Rose because I don’t- I think the shooter did was horrific, and I think the- you know, you can talk about why shooters do things, but really fundamentally–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, his father said he was brainwashed about the COVID vaccine and thought it was making him suicidal. That’s what his–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I mean the thing is, it’s like- to talk about the shooter puts the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –motivation was when he said he was going to shoot up the CDC.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –emphasis on somebody who’s- I mean, I think we shouldn’t be putting our emphasis on–
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, I am on misinformation about vaccines.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I mean, I think the key- the key thing is there’s a loss of public trust in public health that happened in part because of a lot of- frankly, even- even- even on this network and on other networks, there was a particular single point of view put across during the COVID pandemic about how, you know, that led to things that really did cause harm to people. The school closures are probably the number one thing that- that- that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: This is not a productive line of claims. We covered COVID in depth on this program, like no other Sunday show did.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I’m not blaming you specifically. What I’m saying is, you want to talk about misinformation? The- the- the- the kinds of decisions and sort of the public sort of face of public health during the pandemic led to many people losing trust in public health.
MARGARET BRENNAN: The Trump administration officials.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: No, I mean- I mean, like Biden. So Biden, for instance, censored me–
MARGARET BRENNAN: The pandemic began under the Trump administration, and we put those officials on our air.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: But- but during the- during the- just so we’re clear, the Biden administration censored me, right? They censored- they sent out direct attacks on people who disagreed on- on- on the COVID- on- on sort of whether the COVID vaccine stopped–
MARGARET BRENNAN: RFK Jr. called the COVID vaccine the deadliest vaccine ever made.
[CROSSTALK]
MARGARET BRENNAN: That is misinformation, and we’re not being clear about that. And I think that is dangerous. Wouldn’t you agree?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: People lost their jobs, Margaret, because the- the Biden administration censored people and said, “Look, you can’t even talk about COVID vaccine harms.–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –We’re talking about a shooting.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, and I’m talking about why you have the the kind of distrust that’s led to the kind of sort of problems that you’re talking- we were talking about earlier in public health. That distrust was not caused by President Trump, it wasn’t caused by Bobby. It was caused by a lot of- sort of really fundamental–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Misinformation–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, but often spread by the government itself regarding natural immunity, closures of schools, closures- of mask mandates, people lost their jobs because of these vaccine mandates that didn’t make any public health sense. So, if you want to talk about public trust, you have to embrace that fully, right? You can’t just talk about it in a narrow political way.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about a shooting at the CDC and an officer, you said you just went to honor. That’s what I was talking about. You’re talking about something else entirely.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: No, no, you’re trying to- you’re trying to- just to be blunt–
MARGARET BRENNAN: I also asked you about the shoring up public [inaud]–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –What you’re talking about is you’re trying to blame the shooting on Bobby.
MARGARET BRENNAN: No, I’m not. I’m reading you what his father said.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: No, what you’re reading, what you’re- what you’re saying- what you’re implying is that somehow the lack of public trust
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m not talking about him. I’m talking about your visit.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: And is enough being done.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I think it’s really unfortunate–
MARGARET BRENNAN Since you want to restore public trust, tell me what you’re doing now, because the Washington Post and Bloomberg reported the White House is preparing an executive order on vaccines and autism. What is it going to prescribe? What is it going to do? Why are we seeing another announcement here when I know you are launching research into a plethora of issues that are contributing factors potentially to autism. Why would the White House be saying only look at this thing?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Well, I don’t- I mean- I would have to ask the president about the specifics–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because that is going to–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –of the executive order. I tell you want we’re doing–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you think that’s restoring trust in vaccines?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: The- the purpose of the- whatever the- I mean I- you can ask the president about the executive order, but I’ll tell you what the- the focus of the president has been–
MARGARET BRENNAN: You don’t know about the executive order?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I- I don’t- I won’t be able to tell you specifically what’s on it because I don’t think it’s done yet. But you can ask the president about it. What I can tell you is that the president cares deeply, as does Bobby, about the rise in autism. I know you do as well. There’s so many families around the country that- that have- that have had, you know, have faced the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –issues of this, right?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, and they want real information.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: And so I, as NIH director, have been focused on making sure that we have science that addresses that- that very complicated question about why we’ve seen a rise in autism. It’s not going to be a simple answer. And I- last year I authorized something called the Autism Data Science Initiative. We’re going to have a big, sort of, early, sort of- sort of, results from it in a couple of weeks from the- the dozen and more scientific teams that have been funded to look at this, with a mandate of thinking very broadly, not just genes, not- not just environmental exposures, but potential interactions. We don’t know- if you ask me as a scientist, do I know why we’ve seen this rise in autism? I’ll tell you, I don’t know the answer to that question.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: And the fact that it gets so tied up with, okay, is it- is it vaccines? Not vaccines. It- what it does is it sends a signal to the scientists that if you work on this topic, you’re going to get destroyed if you get the- the wrong answer.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I- I tried my hardest. The way you build public trust is allow people to talk and think without that kind of sort of political overlay. I’ve tried my very hardest as the NIH director to make- to allow that to happen–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Which is so key for science. Which is why I’m asking why the president putting out an order specifically focused on one, what seems to be preconceived notion, how that would–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: You’re jumping ahead. I mean, I don’t know exactly what’s in this executive order and neither do you. So it’s- it’s not yet–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, it’s- it’s interesting that you don’t. My colleague Matt Gutman here at CBS asked you last week whether you think vaccines cause autism. You said you don’t know for certain. You said there isn’t evidence that any vaccine causes autism, but you also don’t have evidence that vaccines do not. Parents are preparing to send their kids back to school.
[CROSSTALK]
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Okay, so just- I just want to be very clear what I actually said.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Please be clear. Should parents trust that they can go vaccinate their kids when their doctor tells them to do so for them to go back to school?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I think- I think that- that parents, for most kids, especially for the measles vaccines, the DTP, all the standard childhood vaccines, it’s very important that parents vaccinate their kids. As far as can they feel confident sending back to schools, you know, I just- just to push back some, it was a tremendous mistake to cause parents to fear that- about sending their kids to school during the COVID pandemic. The kids were better off in school. We shouldn’t be scaring public–
MARGARET BRENNAN: I’m talking about what people do now. It’s August, about to be September, kids are going back to school–
[CROSSTALK]
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, but Margaret you’re talking about the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –not talking about 2020. I’m talking about 2026.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –you’re talking about- we’re talking about the- why people have–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –clarity from the federal government–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Okay just so we’re clear–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –and the top health official–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: If you want clarity, let me give you some clarity.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Please.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: The reason why you have this problem of public trust is because what happened in 2020 has not yet been addressed–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Can these parents trust you and the recommendation that they should–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: Yeah, I think- I mean- the–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –go get their kids vaccinated?
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –the parents should be trusting me. I mean, I’m giving my recommendation. I vaccinated my kids. I don’t think that it is a- I think if you want to protect your kids from these- these- these sort of preventable diseases, yes, you should vaccinate your kids. But it is even more important that these kids go to school. That in no way, shape, or form should this show or any other show like it perpetuate the idea that- that sending their kids to school is worse because there’s going to be some health risk there when it’s just not true, right? If you want to protect your kids from those- those preventable diseases, vaccinate your kids. I’ve been very, very clear about that. But it is- it is a mistake, and it contributes to the lack of public trust if you sort of fearmonger around, ‘oh, if you send your kids to school, well, you might be around unvaccinated kids.’ That’s- that’s a- that’s a tremendous mistake, right? If you vaccinate your kids, you can protect your kids from those- those- those risks, whatever they are. In- in any case, it’s better to send the kids to school because that’s how you keep kids healthy.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes, we want to send our kids to school.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: So, but now addressing what happened in 2020 is part of that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: If you want to say why there’s this loss of public trust, you have to really wrap your arms around that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you trust the science and the health workers and the vaccines now, is what I understood you were saying, and so that is the message that I think we can–
DR. BHATTACHARYA: I mean, I trust the science. I mean, I’ve looked at the scientific evidence–
MARGARET BRENNAN: –end on here.
DR. BHATTACHARYA: –and there’s lots. I mean, I personally have made decisions for my family around those lines too, so–
MARGARET BRENNAN: That’s good to know. Thank you. We’re going to leave it there because I know we’re running out of time. We’ll be back in a moment.
{END TRANSCRIPT}
I did not know this until I saw it mentioned on X (formerly Twitter). When a company hires J1 student temporary or season employees, they do not have to pay the 7.5% FICA or Social Security tax on the wages.
If a company hires a seasonal American student, they have to pay the 7.5%. If the company hires a foreign student, they don’t. This creates a perverse incentive for private equity firms, companies or corporations to hire foreign seasonal workers. This is true, I checked it out.
[SOURCE – and IRS SOURCE – and Alternate Source]
Apparently, this is now the common approach within the hospitality industry to save money and increase profit from payrolls. Unfortunately, this approach puts young Americans at a disadvantage when seeking summer or short-term seasonal employment.
For fiscal Year 2025: The U.S. State Department processed 506,142 applications and successfully issued 451,803 J-1 visas.
Now, obviously there may be some regions or areas where there are not enough young people to fill the jobs. However, if you do the math that 7.5% employer contribution saved is a lot of incentive for the corporation to avoid hiring seasonal American workers.
One student making $20/hr x 500 hours worked (over 3 months) = $10,000 payroll. The company has to pay an additional $750 in social security if the student is American. The $750 is saved if they use a foreign J1 student worker.
If the hospitality organization hires 20 seasonal workers for 3 months, using the J1 visa process saves them $15,000 in taxes.
A private equity group, multinational owner or corporation running the business is likely to be looking at the bottom line.
Additionally, this J1 entry allows the overall immigration system to be abused if the person doesn’t leave the USA at the conclusion of their employment. How many illegal aliens are created by those who enter under a J1 visa and never leave?
Suspicious Cat is now aware, and, well, increasingly suspicious:
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 