Published science paper reveals exactly how ivermectin blocks viral replication of SARS-CoV-2

Image: Published science paper reveals exactly how ivermectin blocks viral replication of SARS-CoV-2



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) The mainstream media and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) want you to believe that ivermectin is nothing more than “horse paste” that has no legitimate use in humans. The truth, however, is that ivermectin shows incredible promise in fighting viruses.

A paper published earlier this year in the journal Future Virology explains that ivermectin contains binding efficacy against key proteins in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. So much more than just an “animal drug,” ivermectin might just be the remedy that puts an end to the plandemic – if only people were allowed to access it.

Using an in silico approach, researchers from India, where ivermectin is widely used to treat the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), demonstrated the possible mechanism of action through which ivermectin fights Chinese Germs without the need for masks or “vaccines.”

Through molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation, the research team was able to demonstrate an interaction between ivermectin and key proteins in the pathogenesis of the Fauci Flu.

“Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency,” the paper explains.

“The antiviral action and ADMET profile of ivermectin was on par with the currently used anticorona drugs such as hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir.”

The science is clear: Ivermectin is a safe and effective remedy for covid

These are powerful findings that completely defy the false narrative being pushed by the medical establishment, which claims that ivermectin is “dangerous” and “unproven,” despite having been approved for human use by the FDA back in 1996.

While ivermectin is traditionally used to fight malaria and parasites, many have seen incredible results using it to fight the Wuhan Flu. The only problem is getting it, as many conventional doctors refuse to or are restricted from prescribing it.

Ivermectin is easily obtained online and in feed stores for animal use, containing the same ingredients as what is found in the human version. Some have resorted to simply taking animal ivermectin when no other options are available.

This is truly a shame as medical science clearly shows that ivermectin exerts antiviral activity that could prevent serious infection with the Fauci Flu. Ivermectin may also fight an existing Chinese Virus infection, reducing its severity and quickly eliminating it from the body.

“… ivermectin has been recently reported as the most active agent against COVID-19 among the US FDA-approved drugs in vitro trial,” the paper explains.

“… a recent study claims that the drug inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in in vitro condition and can reduce the spread of the virus by approximately 5000-times within 48 h[ours] while being tested in vitro using primate cell lines.”

All of this is fully cited, by the way, showing that actual science backs the use of ivermectin. It is politically incorrect to say this, of course, but the evidence speaks for itself.

The problem with ivermectin is that it is off-patent, inexpensive to produce, and easily available – or at least it would be easily available if the powers that be would stop interfering with its prescription.

“Considering the therapeutic promise of ivermectin against COVID-19, the present study has been conducted to represent the efficacy of this drug against the four most crucial functional proteins of SARS-CoV-2 using advanced biocomputational approaches,” the paper further explains.

“… our in silico data have indicated that ivermectin efficiently utilizes viral spike protein, main protease, replicase and human TMPRSS2 receptors as the most possible targets for executing its antiviral efficiency,” it concludes.

More related news about the Fauci Flu and how to treat it without masks or “vaccines” can be found at

Sources for this article include:

Economy Tanking, But Biden Gives Out Sandwiches On Labor Day




Biden treats electrical union workers to lunch on Labor Day



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Joe Biden spent Labor Day doing what he does best: staging a limp and meaningless photo-op amid a crisis. Biden, dressed as if he himself were a working man, popped out of an SUV in New Castle, Delaware, on Monday, armed with boxes of sandwiches from Capriotti’s, a Wilmington restaurant chain. He proceeded to hand out the sandwiches to members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 313 in New Castle. Nobody mentioned the abysmal jobs numbers, or inflation, or the catastrophe in Afghanistan – hey, he gave out sandwiches, man! Why spoil a pleasant occasion by bringing up uncomfortable issues?

The Associated Press reported that Old Joe “shook hands and chatted with the group of mostly men, who were clad in jeans and union T-shirts. Biden spent several minutes chatting with the union members in groups before telling them, ‘C’mon, let’s go get something to eat.’”

As the union members enjoyed their cold cuts, the latest jobs report showed that 235,000 new jobs were added to the economy in August, fully 765,000 fewer than in July. Biden didn’t say anything about that, or what he planned to do about it. If anyone had asked him, he would likely have responded much the way he did when he was asked about Afghanistan on July 2: “I want to talk about happy things, man. Look, it’s Fourth of July. I’m concerned that you’re asking me questions that I will answer next week, but it’s the holiday weekend. I’m going to celebrate it. There are great things happening.”

Great things may be happening, but not to the American economy. Bank of America economist Joseph Song said: “The weaker employment activity is likely both a demand and supply story — companies paused hiring in the face of weaker demand and uncertainty about the future while workers withdrew due to health concerns.” This is a direct result of Biden’s handlers stoking hysteria about the Delta variant and doing everything they can to keep Covid paranoia alive. No immediate end is in sight: Citigroup economist Andrew Hollenhorst noted that “the 5.2% unemployment rate and rapidly rising wages suggest building inflationary pressure.”

But if any of the union members Biden met in New Castle are facing professional uncertainty, well, hey, at least they got a free sandwich from the president of the United States. The sandwich photo-op was classic Biden: Here is a man who has been a politician for fifty-plus years doing what he does best—glad-handing people and giving the appearance that he cares about them, thereby deftly deflecting attention away from the fact that his policies have caused immense harm, not least for the very people he is glad-handing. It has worked so well that he was a senator for 36 years, vice president for eight more, and is now president of the United States. Ultimately, however, visits like the one to New Castle on Monday are as empty as the calories in the sandwiches Old Joe handed out.

Biden wouldn’t be in a position to bestow ham and cheese on the grateful masses if it weren’t for the establishment media that has covered for him indefatigably for half a century (with the notable exception of his disastrous 1988 presidential campaign), and that hasn’t changed. On Tuesday, the New York Times surveyed the abysmal economic numbers and published a story with this headline: “Inflation Is Popping From Sydney to San Francisco. It May Be a Good Sign.”

Of course it’s a good sign! What else could it be, with a Democrat in the White House? The Times says happily: “If inflation does fade as policymakers expect, the current burst could actually offer benefits: In the United States, it has helped to nudge inflation expectations back out of the dangerously low zone, to levels that are historically consistent with healthy price gains. It has proved harder for central bankers to move prices up than it is for them to cool them off, so that opportunistic inflation could help the Fed to nail its price goals in the longer run.”

Got that? Inflation is good, because it accustoms us to expect more inflation, and that’s a good thing. If this doesn’t convince you, remember: Old Joe handed out those sandwiches in New Castle at no charge! If you had been there, you could have gotten one, too! See? He is one of us, and he has our best interests at heart. Forget all that dismal economic news, and remember: he is the bringer of cold cuts.

Four Taliban members Obama traded for deserter Bergdahl are in the new Afghan government



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Really, what did anyone expect?

“Four Taliban members swapped for Bowe Bergdahl now in Afghan government,” by Samuel Chamberlain, New York Post, September 7, 2021:

Four of the five Taliban members released from Guantanamo Bay by the Obama administration in 2014 in exchange for admitted US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl are part of the Islamic fundamentalist group’s new hardline government in Afghanistan, according to local media reports.

The four members of the so-called “Taliban Five” who have joined the new government are Acting Director of Intelligence Abdul Haq Wasiq, Acting Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs Norullah Noori, Deputy Defense Minister Mohammad Fazl, and Acting Minister of Information and Culture Khairullah Khairkhah. The fifth member of the Taliban Five, Mohammad Nabi Omari, was appointed governor of eastern Khost Province last month.

Afghan outlet TOLOnews published a list Tuesday of members of the new “caretaker” government, which features several familiar faces who helped run the war-torn country between 1996 and 2001 — when the Taliban were forced from power by US-led NATO forces following the 9/11 attacks.

Wasiq, Fazl, and Khairkhah all held positions in the former Taliban government — Wasiq as a deputy intelligence chief, Fazl as army chief of staff, and Khairkhah as interior minister.

According to assessments written in 2008 by leadership at Guantanamo Bay and later made public by Wikileaks, Wasiq “utilized his office to support [Al Qaeda] and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture” and “was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against U.S. and Coalition forces” in the early days of the Afghanistan war.

The same assessments said that Fazl was alleged to have had “operational associations with significant al Qaeda and other extremist personnel.”

Fazl and Noori, who was governor of two northern Afghan provinces during the earlier Taliban regime, are also accused of ordering the massacres of ethnic Hazara, Tajik, and Uzbek communities in the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in 1998.

Khairkhah, who helped found the Taliban in 1994, allegedly took part in “meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against U.S. and Coalition Forces” following the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, according to the 2008 assessments. He also was the governor of western Herat province between 1999 and 2001 and was known as “one of the major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan,” US military leadership found.

Despite the assessments recommending “continued detention” for the five, then-President Barack Obama signed off on an agreement that sprung the men from Gitmo in exchange for the release of Bergdahl, who had been taken captive by the Taliban after walking away from an observation post in Paktika Province in June 2009.

“The United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind,” Obama said at a Rose Garden ceremony announcing Bergdahl’s release on May 31, 2014.

As Bergdhal returned to the United States, the Taliban Five were flown to Qatar, where much of the Taliban’s political leadership resided at the time. Among those aghast by the price paid for Bergdahl’s return was then Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who told CBS’ “Face The Nation” that the Taliban Five were “the hardest of the hard core” and “the highest high-risk people.”

In 2015, Bergdahl was charged by the military with desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty and one count of misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of his fellow soldiers. In 2017, he pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, a reduction in rank and a fine. Bergdahl has since appealed to federal court in a bid to get his conviction overturned.

The new Taliban government also features Acting Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, who is on the FBI’s most-wanted list with a $5 million bounty on his head and is believed to still be holding at least one American hostage. He headed the feared Haqqani network that is blamed for many deadly attacks and kidnappings….



Finally, Trial Begins of 9/11 Attack Masterminds



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Just days before the 20th anniversary of their murderous handiwork, a military tribunal in Guantánamo Bay on Tuesday resumed the much-interrupted and multiple postponed trial of five masterminds of the 9/11 jihad attacks: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ammar al-Baluchi, and Mustafa al Hawsawi. It’s understandable if you thought these men had been tried, convicted, and sentenced long ago; after all, it has been two decades since their crime. What has taken so long?

The trial was supposed to begin, finally, on January 11 of this year, but last September it was announced that it was once again being postponed, this time, predictably enough, because of covid. Yet as Newsweek reported Tuesday, “Despite the reading being presented over nine years ago, the case has not moved past the pretrial phase, facing a number of delays over the years.

But the main reason why has it taken nearly twenty years for these jihadis to face justice is because of one man: Barack Hussein Obama. According to Newsweek, “The men were formally charges [sic] in June of 2008. By that time, former President Barack Obama was close to taking office, having come off a campaign during which he promised to close Guantánamo. That led to a temporary suspension of the trial.”

After that, Obama’s self-described “wingman,” then-Attorney General Eric Holder, “decided that the trial should be in New York but was met with strong opposition.” This was based on the assumption that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others were defendants in what was essentially an ordinary criminal case, rather than combatants involved in planning an act of war against the United States; the Obama administration was in the process of denying, on an institutional basis, that there even was such a thing as a global jihad.

Trying these men in civilian court would have been a continuation of the U.S. government policy of treating jihadis as if they were individual criminals, rather than soldiers in a larger war effort. The U.S. government has been extremely reluctant to admit that such a war exists, and so their policy has been to try jihadis in civilian courts.

If the U.S. had had this policy in 1943, it never would have admitted that it was at war with Germany, and would have tried every captured German soldier as if he were a criminal who had broken the law as a “lone wolf,” separately from all the others who did the same thing, and with no mention of the Nazi ideology that underlay it all. If the Allies had approached World War II the way the West has dealt with the jihad threat since 9/11, newspapers would have been filled with accounts of how masses of armed Germans had swarmed into Warsaw and Paris and Amsterdam and the rest, while authorities were trying to determine the motive of each one.

A trial in New York would also have given Mohammed, a skilled propagandist, and the others an international soapbox. Congress came to the rescue at that time, passing legislation “forbidding federal trials for Guantánamo prisoners, leading to new charges presented during their arraignment on May 5, 2012.” Still the delays continued. In August 2019, the Daily Mail reported that the announcement of the January 11 date was “the first time that a trial judge in the case actually established a date. Prosecutors had tried to get the ball rolling with two previous judges after the 2012 arraignment.”

All this has been happening despite the fact that years ago, Mohammed and the others for all intents and purposes admitted their role in the 9/11 jihad attacks, penning a lengthy Islamic defense for their actions in which they never denied plotting the hijacking of planes in order to commit mass murder of American civilians, but justified their actions by claiming that the U.S. was the greater terrorist. They signed the document “the 9/11 Shura Council.”

This was not a document obtained under torture, but a closely reasoned explanation of why the 9/11 attacks were justified from the standpoint of Islamic doctrine and belief.

Nevertheless, according to the Daily Mail, “the case was also delayed when President Barack Obama suspended the war court, in an attempt to add more protections for due process.”

How was due process ever under threat? These men signed their names to a document that essentially admitted their complicity in planning the attacks. But that apparently cut no ice with our sainted former president, whose only sin, our Leftist moral superiors hasten to assure us, was once wearing a tan suit.

And so now twenty years have passed between the jihad massacres these men perpetrated and their trial. This epitomizes the unwillingness of American officials, even today, to come to grips fully with what happened on September 11, 2001, and to formulate a coherent and realistic response to the global jihad threat that continues to plague the world so many years after that catastrophic day.

Mainstream Media: Muslims True Victims of 9/11 Attacks



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Saturday marks twenty years since Islamic jihadis attacked New York City and Washington, and the establishment media is doing all it can to ensure that Americans grasp the true significance of those attacks: not that America was hit by a global jihad that has only gained in strength since then and could hit us again, but that Muslims were and are the true victims of that fateful day. In the last few days, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press have published lengthy pieces to that effect, and more in this vein is certain to come this week.

The LA Times on Friday published a lengthy weeper entitled “Muslim youth in America: A generation shadowed by the aftermath of 9/11,” all about how some people say rude things to innocent Muslims just because some people did something way back two decades ago. The article begins: “On a rainy day during her sophomore year of high school, as Aissata Ba studied in the library, a photo popped into her phone. It showed a beheading by Islamic State militants, along with a caption in red letters: ‘Go back to your country.’” In the big bad, “Islamophobic” USA, the perpetrator of this horror got off scot-free: “Ba reported the incident. Administrators never tracked down the person who sent it.”

Then there was “the boy in sixth grade who would say ‘allahu Akbar,’ Arabic for ‘God is great,’ and throw his backpack near her, pretending it was a bomb.” Actually, “Allahu akbar” means “Allah is greater,” that is, greater than your god; it is a declaration of the superiority of Islam and its victory over other religions, which is why Islamic jihadists so often scream out this phrase while committing acts of violence against unbelievers.

But the Los Angeles Times doesn’t explain any of that; it’s too busy explaining how Muslims are the true victims of the 9/11 attacks: “Asked when they thought such incidents became common, the Ba family didn’t hesitate. ‘It started with 9/11,’ said Ba’s mom, Zeinebou, who immigrated to Chicago in 1999. That day in 2001 caused a chain of tragedies — for the nearly 3,000 people who perished during the attacks in New York, at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania; for the young men and women who died serving their country in the wars that followed; and for Muslims, and those perceived as Muslim, who became targets of hate.”

It would be much easier to sympathize with all this if not for the fact that since 9/11, Islamic advocacy groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), with eager help from the establishment media, have insisted that any honest investigation of the motivating ideology behind the attacks, and jihad terror in general, constituted “hate.” Then there are the numerous fake anti-Muslim hate crimes, fabricated apparently in order to buttress the claim that Muslims are uniquely harassed and victimized in the United States.

The facts don’t bear out this claim. FBI hate crime statistics show that anti-Semitic hate crimes are far more common than attacks on Muslims, which actually dropped 42% in the last year. No hate crime is justified, but the idea that Muslims are living in fear of MAGA-hat-wearing redneck vigilantes in America is Leftist fantasy.

Despite these facts, the AP came out with its own Muslims-Are-Victims 9/11 story on Tuesday: “Two decades after 9/11, Muslim Americans still fighting bias.” It opened with another unsubstantiated anecdote that, as all such anecdotes do, revealed more than it intended: “A car passed, the driver’s window rolled down and the man spat an epithet at two little girls wearing their hijabs: ‘Terrorist!’ It was 2001, mere weeks after the twin towers at the World Trade Center fell, and 10-year-old Shahana Hanif and her younger sister were walking to the local mosque from their Brooklyn home. Unsure, afraid, the girls ran. As the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks approaches, Hanif can still recall the shock of the moment, her confusion over how anyone could look at her, a child, and see a threat. ‘It’s not a nice, kind word. It means violence, it means dangerous. It is meant to shock whoever … is on the receiving end of it,’ she says.”

If that really happened, it’s a shame, but the fact that both the LA Times and AP had to lead with stories of people saying rude things to Muslims unwittingly reveals that they didn’t have anything worse to head up their stories: no stories of Muslims being attacked, of mosques being burnt down, of laws targeting Muslims in the United States and denying them basic rights. Nor should there be such stories. But the fact that there aren’t any gives the lie to the entire establishment narrative.

The UK’s Guardian, meanwhile, published a story Monday showing where all this is tending: “But while the FBI, CIA, police and the newly created Department of Homeland Security scoured the country and the world for radicalized Muslims, an existing threat was overlooked – white supremacist extremists already in the US, whose numbers and influence have continued to grow in the last two decades.”

Of course. It’s those “white supremacist extremists” we have to really watch out for. No doubt the FBI is still hoping to find some. But as the Taliban seals its takeover of Afghanistan, this downplaying of a real threat in favor of one created for propaganda purposes carries a sting unintended by its authors. Sometime soon, while we’re hunting for “white supremacists” and making sure Muslims aren’t called rude names, we may suddenly be reminded of who the victims of 9/11 really were, in ways that could rival the horror and tragedy of that unforgettable day.

Fauci bioweapons funding CONFIRMED, smoking gun proves covid vaccines based on govt biowarfare program



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) Thanks to a FOIA request by The Intercept, we now have smoking-gun proof that Anthony Fauci directed NIH funding for bioweapons research on SARS-CoV-2 (via “gain-of-function” experiments) under the cover of the Chinese Communist Party. The 900+ pages of once-secret documents also confirm that the United States government originated the bioweapons research and funded it to completion. After Trump banned biological weapons programs in the United States, Fauci and others conspired to criminally conduct illegal research by shifting the technology to China (and laundering US taxpayer money through the EcoHealth Alliance to fund it).

As detailed by The Intercept:

NEWLY RELEASED DOCUMENTS provide details of U.S.-funded research on several types of coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Intercept has obtained more than 900 pages of documents detailing the work of EcoHealth Alliance, a U.S.-based health organization that used federal money to fund bat coronavirus research at the Chinese laboratory.

One of the grants, titled “Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,” outlines an ambitious effort led by EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak to screen thousands of bat samples for novel coronaviruses. The research also involved screening people who work with live animals.

The bat coronavirus grant provided EcoHealth Alliance with a total of $3.1 million, including $599,000 that the Wuhan Institute of Virology used in part to identify and alter bat coronaviruses likely to infect humans.

Fauci lied, millions died

In essence, thanks to the FOIA revelations, we now know that:

  1. Fauci lied under oath when he claimed he never funded gain-of-function research. (Where is the FBI raid on Fauci?)
  2. The entire COVID “pandemic” was built as a biological weapons program from the very start.
  3. Fauci and others committed not merely criminal acts in violation of biological weapons research bans, he also committed treason against the United States of America by handing weapons of mass destruction to America’s communist enemy (China) when then deployed the weapon system against America.

We also therefore know that the vaccine is an extension of the bioweapons program funded by Fauci, since the spike protein incorporated into covid vaccines was developed through Fauci-funded gain-of-function research.

With this knowledge now being made public thanks to The Intercept, all vaccines should be halted worldwide, and criminal indictments should be leveled against Fauci and the thousands of co-conspirators who were complicit in this operation, which includes Big Pharma CEOs, virology scientists, and freedom-hating politicians who used all this as an excuse to push toxic bioweapons onto the population via “vaccine” mandates.

BOMBSHELL: The US government started this as a MERS bioweapons program to mass murder people in the Middle East, but it was switched to murdering Americans when Trump took power

The other huge bombshell now emerging from all this is that it appears the US government was originally planning to deploy its bioweapons as a MERS (Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome) virus to mass murder political enemies in Iran (and other nations) under “President Clinton” (who was slated to take office in 2017 after the 2016 election was rigged). But when Trump’s military intelligence white hats blocked the election rigging of 2016 and Trump took office, the bioweapons program was redirected to focus on killing Americans and dethroning Trump with the coordinated covid-rigged election scheme of 2020.

So the bioweapons that the US government originally planned to dump on the people of the Middle East ended up being refocused on SARS-CoV and placed into vaccines to be injected into US soldiers and 200+ million American citizens, all in an effort to carry out mass genocide against the American people and its active duty defenders. All along, Fauci was taking orders from the Obama / Clinton cartel which had sought a seamless transition of power to the Clinton regime but was thwarted by the outpouring of popular support for Trump.

Thus, by definition, Fauci, Obama, Biden, and the U.S. deep state have been working with communist China to build and deploy weapons of mass destruction against the American people. Nearly all Democrats are fully on board with this effort, since they hate America and openly call for the killing of conservatives. Shockingly, they’re also all-in on committing vaccine suicide by injecting themselves with the very bioweapon that was deployed to stop Trump. So what we’re about to witness in the years ahead is the mass death of Democrats and whatever conservatives have been propagandized enough to inject themselves with the death shots labeled “vaccines.”

Vaccines are just the first step in a binary weapon system that has yet to be fully deployed

Finally, the vaccines are not designed to kill people immediately upon being injected. They’re actually designed to impair the immune system and prime the body to overreact to a future release of a viral variant that sends the body into immune reaction overdrive. This is called Antibody-Dependent Enhancement, and for it to be fully invoked, a new variant must be introduced and circulated that evades the antibodies produced by the current vaccines (what we call covid vax 1.0). It appears that the Delta variant has already achieved somewhere around a 65% evasion, but upcoming variants will demonstrate even stronger evasion/escape properties.

The real bombshell is that the same Fauci / Daszak / Baric bioweapons program that built SARS-CoV-2 could have already constructed a radical variant that functions as the second part in the binary weapon system. This new variant — perhaps one that’s already released or soon to be released into the wild — would result in mass fatalities of those who took covid vaccines, even if they survived the more immediate vaccine adverse reactions such as blood clotting and heart attacks.

Get the full, shocking details in today’s bombshell Situation Update podcast:

Find more breaking news interviews and videos each day at:


Michigan Governor Urges State Legislature to Repeal 1931 Law Criminalizing Abortion

Michigan Governor Urges State Legislature to Repeal 1931 Law Criminalizing Abortion



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

In the wake of Texas passing the Heartbeat Act, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who is among those Democrats panicking because access to abortions might soon be limited, is calling on the state legislature to repeal a nearly century-old state law that criminalizes abortion.

Detroit News reports that the Democratic governor issued a statement six days after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to enjoin a Texas pro-life bill in an emergency filing.

Whitmer’s statement read:

In Michigan today, abortion is safe and legal, but we have an arcane law on the books from the 1930s banning abortion and criminalizing health care providers who offer comprehensive care and essential reproductive services.

Whitmer went on to say that “Thankfully, that dangerous, outdated law is superseded by Roe v. Wade,” meaning the law has not been enforced since 1973; however, “if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe, that Michigan law and others like it may go back into effect in dozens of states.” Also, according to Whitmer, this “dangerous” law is presumably racist since if it is practiced again, it would “disproportionately impact Black and brown communities.” 

Issuing such statements, the Michigan governor seems to have no problem with the “disproportionate” rate of abortions that terminate the lives of pre-born babies of color but sees it as a problem if they are not aborted.

The governor further vowed to “stand in the way of any bills that seek to strip away fundamental rights from women or get in the way of doctors’ ability to do their jobs.” Whitmer urged the state’s legislature to approve a proposal sponsored by Senator Erika Geiss (D-Taylor) that would repeal the 1931 law that makes it a felony to willfully administer any medicine, substance, or drug or employ “any instrument” with the intent to procure a miscarriage, unless it is necessary to preserve a mother’s life.

Whitmer joins many leftists, including Democrats, media personalities, Hollywood celebrities, and even the Satanists, who slammed the Texas Heartbeat Act that bans most abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy. The Michigan governor called the Texas legislation “a gross violation of the constitutional right to choose.” 

She said that the Supreme Court’s decision might be seen as an indication that “a majority of justices are willing to throw out the constitutional right to choose that has been in place for 48 years and repeatedly upheld for decades.”

Adding to abortionists’ anxiety, the SCOTUS is set to hear a major pro-life case from Mississippi this fall, which seeks to enforce an abortion ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with a better chance than most such legislation to succeed. In this situation, Whitmer looks to ensure the Michigan abortion industry does not lose business.

Angela Vasquez-Giroux, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Michigan, said of the potential changes in Michigan that might take effect if Roe v. Wade is further gutted that it would be “scary and sad.” She went on to express how terrible it would be for her to see the pro-abortion industry hurting: “For folks who work in reproductive rights or who provide reproductive healthcare, it’s really scary to think about what could happen here.” Vasquez-Giroux also expressed her anguish for those women who “don’t want to be pregnant and have no other option [but to make an abortion],” saying it was “frankly terrifying.” The Planned Parenthood representative did not consider choosing life and keeping a baby an option for her potential clients.

Local pro-life groups rejoiced at the prospect of protection for the unborn. Among them is Right to Life of Michigan. In the statement issued to Fox News, the group said they were not surprised that Whitmer called to repeal the abortion ban since she made it clear it was her intention when she was running for Governor and when she was a state senator.

Her calls, however, would fall flat since “The voters sent pro-life majorities to the Michigan Legislature, so her efforts to repeal the Michigan law will not be successful,” the pro-life advocates believe.

Republicans, who control both the state House and Senate, have already rejected Whitmer’s proposition. The Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Clarklake) stated:

The primary charge of any government or government official is to protect the life of the innocent. Michigan Senate Republicans will not waiver from this fundamental duty to protect the sanctity of life.

A local outlet MLife reports that while there hasn’t been any obvious interest among Republican leadership to introduce legislation similar to the Texas law — which Whitmer promised to veto — they have recently introduced several bills and resolutions that would discourage or restrict access to abortions. 

Among them is HB 5086, which would amend the state’s public health code regarding the definitions of abortions and include abortion-inducing drugs and devices as contraceptives. The bill would also ban physicians from performing an abortion without first establishing whether a heartbeat is detectable in the fetus.

Then, there’s HB 4189, which would allocate funds to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for a marketing campaign discouraging abortion and promoting such alternatives as childbirth and the adoption of infants.

Michigan HHS reported a total of 29,669 induced abortions were performed in Michigan in 2020. 85.1 percent of the Michigan women who had an abortion were not married. Among all induced abortions, 89 percent involved pregnancies of 12 weeks or less. Categorized by race, 36.7 percent of women who received an abortion were white, 53 percent were black, 3.4 percent were Hispanic, and 1.9 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.

National Archives Puts “Harmful Language Alert” on U.S. Founding Documents



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Looking up America’s founding documents? The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) warns that you may be exposed to what it calls a “harmful language.”

“Harmful Language Alert” labels have been placed on top of the web pages displaying the scanned versions of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, as well as the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights.

The alert links to a page entitled “NARA’s Statement on Potentially Harmful Content,” which describes that such content may:

  • reflect racist, sexist, ableist, misogynistic/misogynoir, and xenophobic opinions and attitudes;
  • be discriminatory towards or exclude diverse views on sexuality, gender, religion, and more;
  • include graphic content of historical events such as violent death, medical procedures, crime, wars/terrorist acts, natural disasters and more;
  • demonstrate bias and exclusion in institutional collecting and digitization policies.

On the same page, NARA explains that it keeps documents containing such content available to the public since its mission “is to preserve and provide access to the permanent records of the federal government.” At the same time, NARA signals it understands that since some readers may “perceive” the documents in a “sensitive” way, it strives to seek for a “balance” between the concrete history and some readers’ feelings. That is promised to be achieved via collaboration with “diverse communities.”

The archivists are advised to practice certain methods “to address the problem” and “help users better understand such content.” That includes notifying readers about the existence and origin of “harmful content,” updating descriptions with “more respectful terms” or, if necessary, “creating new standardized terms to describe materials.” Last but not least, the archivists must make“an institutional commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.”

The National Pulse observes that strangely, the alert does not flag a page dedicated to Jim Crow, which uses the word “n*gger” six times, nor it is seen on a page that contains the expression “k*ke Jew.”

The alert placed on the founding documents was spotted on Monday by Ken Cuccinelli, former deputy homeland security secretary in the Trump administration. He tweeted: “What are we becoming? Now the National Archives posts a “Harmful Language Alert” on its website when you pull up the U.S. Constitution?! Are you kidding me? #Constitution

The next day, Representative Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) chimed in, saying: “We tried to tell you the Left wanted to get rid of it [the Constitution]!”

The importance of the founding documents is hard to overestimate. The National Center for Constitutional Studies notes:

No documents have had a greater influence on the citizens of our country than the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence marked the birth of our republic and set forth our “unalienable rights” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Later, the Constitution outlined our style of government and defined the rights that are protected from intrusion by government.

These documents have been a beacon to all men and women who value freedom. They are just as meaningful now as when they were written. As the American statesman Henry Clay said, “The Constitution of the United States was not made merely for the generation that then existed but for posterity — unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.”

While the censors at the National Archives claim the founding documents contain “harmful language,” the National Constitution Center specifies that even though the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights have different purposes, they all are based on the idea that all people have certain fundamental rights that governments are created to protect. The Center further explains that these natural rights are inherent in all people and that such rights are unalienable, meaning they cannot be surrendered to the government under any circumstances. Indeed, such an idea may be perceived as a threat by the federal body in an age of government overreach.

In a way, flagging the documents that describe the principles and ideals that America is built upon, and what it is striving to preserve itself as, seems to be perfectly in line with what looks like the Democrat establishment’s continuous attack on the very core of the American Republic, where the Constitution and other documents are viewed as targets. After all, even the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, stated that the Constitution of the United States was “outdated.” Liberal outlet The Week described the Constitution as an “outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it’s only getting worse,” which is why it should be “thrown in the garbage.” The University of Texas calls for an update to the language of the Constitution since it “undermines the promise of equality it proclaims.” Perhaps, most of all, “the Left hates the Constitution,” as The New American noted because its concrete, conservative nature goes against their hypocritical and double-standard political style that is aimed at a momentary political gain.

Saying that America’s founding documents are in any way “harmful” is akin to saying that “America was never great,” or that America is an intrinsically racist and overall terrible place — a notion endlessly repeated by the leftists and usually accompanied by calls for all sorts of revolutionary changes to it.



Gov. Kristi Noem Pushes Back Against Abortion and Joe Biden



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem signed an executive order Tuesday to tighten restrictions around abortion in the Mount Rushmore State. The popular Republican directed her State Department of Health to establish rules preventing telemedicine pregnancy termination.

Currently, South Dakota doctors are required to examine a pregnant woman before scheduling an abortion. Women must then wait three days before the procedure. The law also mandates that abortions after the first trimester occur in a hospital and totally outlaws abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy — unless deemed a medical emergency.

After being bullied by Planned Parenthood during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration loosened restrictions around telemedicine, extending it to allow abortion services.

Noem will no longer accept this nonsense.

“The Biden Administration is continuing to overstep its authority and suppress legislatures that are standing up for the unborn to pass strong pro-life laws,” the governor said in a statement. “They are working right now to make it easier to end the life of an unborn child via telemedicine abortion. That is not going to happen in South Dakota. I will continue working with the legislature and my Unborn Child Advocate to ensure that South Dakota remains a strong pro-life state.”

Noem’s executive order also mandates the health department to collect data on chemical abortions.

“We commend Governor Noem for taking this bold action that will save lives from dangerous chemical abortions, which have a fourfold higher rate of complications compared to surgical abortion,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said Tuesday. “The Biden administration would turn every post office and pharmacy into an abortion center if they had their way, leaving women alone and at risk of severe heavy bleeding, physical, emotional, and psychological stress, and more. Governor Noem is setting a courageous model today that we hope more state leaders across the nation will soon follow.”

Kristin Hayward of Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls, however, believes the governor’s order is an attack on “reproductive freedom.”

“We know most South Dakotans support the right to safe, legal abortion, but Noem is following a vocal minority that is attacking abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sexual education in this country,” she claimed.

In a state that has not supported a Democrat for president since 1964, it’s doubtful the governor represents an unpopular view.

Biden’s $3.5 Trillion ‘Infrastructure’ Plan Includes Massive Attacks on U.S. Energy Producers



republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The American Petroleum Institute and others are sounding the alarm about hidden provisions in the Democrats’ massive infrastructure bill. The $3.5 trillion bill includes a great deal of spending that has nothing to do with infrastructure, and. according to the API, it also includes pernicious attacks on U.S. energy producers. That’s included in the bill’s latest mark-up.

The energy-related provisions take direct aim at production on federal leases, which Biden already paused via executive order, but then lost on when several states took him to court. The provisions in the so-called infrastructure bill go far beyond even what Biden’s lease pause sought to accomplish, attacking the very viability of producing energy on federal lands.

API has detailed the full-spectrum attack on U.S. energy producers in an email it is sending to its subscribers. PJ Media obtained the email Tuesday evening.

  1. Disincentivizing Federal Lease Bidding
  • 500% Minimum Bid Increase: Would raise onshore minimum lease bid from $2/acre to $10/acre. By BLM office 2020 sales, 11% of leases sold in New Mexico were below $10/acre; 78% in Colorado; and 30% in North Dakota.
  • Cuts Time to Produce in Half: Would reduce the primary term for new onshore leases from 10 years to 5 years, even though a significant percentage of leases require more than 5 years to start producing. For example, recent data shows that 37% of leases in New Mexico started production more than 5 years after authorization.
  • More Than Doubles Annual Rent: Would raise annual rental rates to $3/acre for the first 2 years, and then $5/acre, increasing costs by at least $123 million per year.
  • Eliminates Possibility of Royalty Relief: Would eliminate authority to grant royalty relief in difficult times or national emergency.
  • Imposes New Inspection Fee: Would raise the minimum inspection fees each operator will pay annually to anywhere from $800-$11,300 per lease, varying by lease.
  1. Imposing Huge New Costs on Production
  • Increased Royalty Rates: Would raise onshore royalty rate floor by more than half from 12.5% to 20% on new leases and would raise the already high offshore royalty rate floor to 20%.
  • New Royalties on Venting/Flaring: Would require royalties to be paid on all gas produced, including gas used or consumed for the benefit of the lease such as gathering compressors and gas that is consumed or lost by venting, flaring, or fugitive releases, with limited exceptions, which would raise royalty payments on average by 6.5%.
  • 1500-2000% Bonding Increase: Would increase onshore federal lease bond minimum by 15X for a federal lease bond, by 20X for a statewide bond, and removes the nationwide bond option. Additionally, it calls for rulemaking that will require bonding to cover 100% of the reclamation costs of a lease on federal lands that have less than 0.05% of federal wells orphaned.
  • New Expression of Interest Fee: Would impose a minimum $15/acre to notify the government of public interest in leasing. Onshore leases can be as large as 2,560 acres, thus costing up to $38,400/lease.
  • New “Resource” Fee: Would impose a $4/acre annual fee on producing leases, thus costing up to $10,240/lease for onshore leases, and $23,040/lease for offshore leases.
  • New Leasing Fee: Would impose a $6/acre annual fee on non-producing leases, thus costing up to $15,360 for each onshore lease, and $34,560 for each offshore lease.
  • New Severance Tax Fee: Would impose a new annual, non-refundable Federal severance fee “tax” on every barrel of oil equivalent produced from new leases on federal lands and waters.
  • New Idled Wells Fee: Would impose an annual cost anywhere from $500-$7,500 per idled well per year, and would deem a well “nonoperational” after 2 years, down from 7 years.
  1. Excluding Huge Areas of Rich Natural Resources:Several measures would severely limit access to federal natural gas and oil development – including terminating some existing leases – in Alaska (ANWR/NPRA) and the Gulf of Mexico (Eastern Planning Area), which would hurt local communities that use this royalty revenue for conservation, education, and infrastructure.
  1. Increasing Pipeline Transportation Costs:Would impose a new $10,000/mile annual fee for water depths greater than 500 ft.; and $1,000/mile for water depths less than 500 ft. There are approximately 26 thousand miles of pipelines in the offshore with about 12.6k miles in waters less than 400 ft and 13.7k miles in waters greater than 400 ft. Increased annual costs would total ~$149 million.

None of that has anything to do with improving infrastructure. The pipeline provision actively hurts pipelines, which remain the safest and environmentally cleanest way to transport energy from the source to where it’s refined and used. That provision alone would directly harm the environment. The whole suite of fees and exclusions would make energy more expensive to produce in the United States, ending what’s left of the energy independence the country achieved during the previous administration.

Recommended: Elon Musk Has an Amazing Message for Anyone Who Wants to Censor His Starlink Internet

If enacted, the measures would codify much of the stupefyingly radical and expensive Green New Deal into law. Though the radical Democrats claim all of the above would be done in the name of helping the environment, it would actually end up hurting the environment. The provisions in the bill do nothing to curb energy demand, and should the economy overcome Biden’s other anti-jobs policies, the recovering economy will demand more energy than the U.S. consumed overall in 2020. With more energy demand but domestic suppliers strangled, the U.S. will be forced to resume buying more energy from overseas sources. Those sources do not produce energy as cleanly as U.S. producers. They are also less stable politically. Additionally, some electric generators that currently burn clean natural gas produced in the U.S. will find themselves forced to revert to burning coal. Coal is a dirtier power source than natural gas. In fact, the market-driven switch to natural gas away from coal over the past several years led to the U.S. reducing emissions ahead of the Paris targets despite (?) President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from that agreement when he was in office.

No Republicans support the infrastructure bill, which the Democrats are attempting to pass via reconciliation without a single Republican vote. Moderate Democrats are being urged to vote no and some, including Sen. Joe Manchin, are signaling that the bill includes too much spending for them to support.