People claiming to be "conservative" like to champion the value of Reagan's concept of the “Big Tent”, welcoming EVERYONE to win the vote. Let's examine this "value". Value can only be established by grading results. This concept gave us our first president to publicly proclaim the desirability of the New World Order. That was a "Big Tent Republican". It gave us yet another Big Tent Republican that ignored all the warnings ushering in 9-11, the intentionally miss-named "Patriot Act" that stripped Americans of their Constitutional rights at an unprecedented level, and the longest war in our history. But wait!! There’s MOREll! I encourage you to study the voting records of Paul Ryan, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy and yes, our Senator Daines to mention a few members of “The Big Tent”. Why Senator Daines? On May 16th Senator Daines joined Democrat Tester and voted to send $41 BILLION, 100% financed debt, of your money to support the Nazi fighters in Ukarine proving that the decades-old money laundering system, known as Ukraine, is still working. If you don’t believe any of these claims, research it! When you do, start with researching all the uniform insignias of the Nazi organizations from WWII. You will find many photos of Ukraine fighters, including the Ukraine President, displaying these same insignias. The Black Sun seems to be fairly predominant. It’s a favorite of today’s Nazi, Neo-Nazi and Satanists. Ignorance is a curable affliction, yet it is an acceptable excuse for only so long. As a “Conservative” do you look around and ask; How’d we get in this mess?! The big tent philosophy is much to blame. This ideal requires the sacrifice of truth, facts and principle. Requires? Absolutely YES! If you are not willing to compromise on these, you will surely offend someone, thereby undermining your ability to fill the “tent”. Unfortunately, this FACT is not isolated to politics. You can see this philosophy at work in the Christian Church as well. Here, too, the ambition of “growing the tent” and expanding the resources of the organization brings the fear of offending, therefore THE TRUTH is compromised. “...because you are neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” KJV To continue down this road to ruin for America is simple. Just keep electing professional Politicians who want to “grow the Big Tent”. Your heritage will curse you for it. To stop this slide down the slippery slope, vote for people of principle who are willing to stand firm, espousing their beliefs, unafraid of offending someone. This type of individual is a rare commodity in today’s political world. They will be someone with a fire in their belly to stop the degradation of America. Willing to put their life on hold for a little while to stand for you in front of the onslaught. -Doug Bohn

Ever lived with a Big Brother? If so, I hope he was a good one, not a controlling one. A “good” one would let you play, fail, learn, grow and be yourself.  A controlling one, on the other hand, would likely be constantly breathing down your neck. Restricting your abilities. Preventing adventures. Stunting your abilities. All this CONTROL, of course, is done for your own good, you know, to keep you “safe” he would claim. Youngsters in these types of controlling relationships, know in their heart that this is not how things should be.  Their spirit yearns for the freedom they were born with.  Yet, they settle in, compromising to keep the peace. They learn to ignore the yearning. Soon they become complacent. Convincing themselves that this is “just the way things are”. This controlling “Big Brother” relationship is EXACTLY the relationship you in Ravalli County are experiencing right now.  In fact, It has been “JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE” for so long, complacent has become compliant. Your Big Brother is, of course, THE STATE. You see, your county form of government allows the state to turn your American concept of freedom, “if there’s not a law that says I can’t, I CAN" into a tyrannical reality of "If there’s not a law that says you can, YOU CAN’T." SORRY, but it's for your own good. Just EVERYTHING is impacted, from law enforcement and the power of your County Commissioners to your local elections. (Today "The State" does not allow your county to inspect local elections.) Today, it's “Mother-May-I? Soon, you will have the once-every-10-year-opportunity to choose to stay under the thumb of Big-Brother, or accept the power and responsibility you were born with and your Forefathers fought for you to maintain. Your independence will not come easy. Expect all the friends of BIG BROTHER to come against you, trying to convince you that YOU’RE not capable and don’t deserve to be FREE! Doug Bohn

Guest Article By Chris Caltagirone In the months following the January 6th protests in Washington, many were quick to offer forceful opinions on the “deplorable” actions of the protesters. The small snippet of time covering the heated back-and-forth between civilians and police in the west tunnel very late in the day was played on infinite loop by most networks. The “dark day” and “insurrection” narratives were therefore well engrained in most people after the first year. Despite this overwhelming national groupthink, something seemed off. Some of us wondered what really happened on J6 that made so many law-abiding people, many from families with military or law enforcement backgrounds, want to challenge police officers that day. For any objective person who has reviewed the timeline of the J6 protests and aligned it with the video evidence available thus far, one thing is clear. Many police officers on scene appeared to use excessive force, well beyond what might be “reasonable” in the legal sense. Instead of keeping the peace, some officers appeared to go out of their way to provoke confrontations, or worse. As just one example, Officer Daniel Thau’s body camera footage is available on the internet and offers an unbiased view of what led up to the well publicized west tunnel “riot.” His camera footage shows the events in the terrace area, well before things got out of hand later in the day. Officers in riot gear are seen firing “less lethal” munitions into an unarmed and peaceful crowd, from elevated positions no less. This included tear gas, rubber bullets and stun grenades (“flash bangs”). During this time, Officer Thau is shown frantically running around, with almost child-like panic in his voice, screaming at nobody in particular: “We need more f—king munitions!”, “It’s like shooting f—king zombies!” “Just f—king shoot!” As a fellow law enforcement officer, I had trouble seeing Thau act this way, especially when his body camera footage shows the unarmed crowd was mostly just milling around, waving flags and yelling patriotic slogans. They appeared to present no threat to other civilians or law enforcement officers on scene. Keep in mind many officers were already wearing full riot gear and positioned on a balcony approximately 20 feet above the protesters, far from any “danger”. Despite all this, Thau and other officers began indiscriminately launching less lethal munitions into the crowd, sometimes at point blank range. They were fired without any verbal warnings, without any orders to disperse, and often from elevated positions, at a peaceful crowd containing thousands of children, women and elderly citizens. Sworn law enforcement officers are well aware less lethal munitions are typically reserved for violent, combative individuals who pose an imminent threat to the safety of those around them or police officers. Yet officers are seen indiscriminately firing these munitions into the milling crowd at nobody in particular, without any verbal warnings or orders to disperse. Dozens of civilians sustained horrible injuries when they were hit by these munitions, including one adult male who is shown on video getting medical attention after the left side of his face was blown open by a rubber bullet he (and those around him) didn’t see coming. An adult female and her husband both suffered permanent burns requiring hospitalization when they were hit by a flash bang that was thrown blindly from an elevated position. Just two examples of many. So from a legal standpoint, what does it mean to say a particular use of force is “reasonable”? In almost all law enforcement agencies, sworn officers are subject to an internal use of force review any time force is used to either effect an arrest or control a subject. This includes anything from “going hands-on” all the way up to discharging a firearm. At minimum, the officer’s actions are reviewed by an internal panel of superiors and peers, to determine if the use of force was reasonable. Appropriate action is then taken if the officer’s use of force was determined to be inconsistent with agency policy, as well as established case law. Federal case law has provided an “objective reasonableness” test since 1989, via Graham vs. Connor(490 US 386), which replaced the previous “malicious intent” standard. In Graham vs. Connor, the US Supreme Court moved away from a subjective 8th Amendment test and replaced it with a more objective standard for evaluating whether an officer’s use of force was excessive, all within the context of a 4th Amendment seizure. The PDF of the Court’s opinion is easily searchable on the internet. It’s an informative read that generates lengthy debates to this day. In this decision, the Court determined whether or not a particular use of force is “reasonable” should be applied through the lens of a reasonable officer on scene, based on the “totality of the circumstances.” This analysis needs to take three factors into account: • What was the severity of the crime at issue? Even if you believe the protesters had no right to be physically present on the Capitol grounds, they were at most “guilty” of Disorderly Conduct and/or Failure to Disperse, both (barely) misdemeanors. Did any of the subjects pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers? As explained above, it would be hard for a reasonable officer to come to that conclusion. Did any of the subjects actively resist arrest or attempt to evade arrest? Prior to the deployment of these munitions, citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights were never told they were under arrest, nor even made aware they had committed a “crime.” From a legal standpoint, the deployment of less lethal munitions at a peaceful crowd on J6 was therefore likely unreasonable and an excessive use of force. It unnecessarily escalated tensions and provoked some citizens to fight back as best they could. Just to cite two examples as the day progressed, Lt. Michael Byrd effectively executed Ashli Babbitt (an unarmed female veteran) at point blank range with a single pistol shot from a concealed position and no verbal warning. Officer Lila Morris is seen on multiple videos clubbing Roseanne Boyland (an unconscious adult female) multiple times with her ASP baton, at one point swinging so hard it flew out of her hands. Byrd and Morris were both “cleared” by internal investigations that were not made available to the public, and then later promoted with great fanfare. Other camera footage from J6 shows officers winding up and clubbing defenseless citizens with baton strikes to the head as they do nothing more than walk through an already open door. True cowardice on full display. Despite the hundreds of documented significant injuries to J6 protestors, not one law enforcement officer sustained anything close to serious bodily injury. Officer Brian Sicknick’s death was determined to have occurred days after J6 and was due to health issues, not being hit over the head with a fire extinguisher, which was proven to be completely false. In fact, almost all J6 law enforcement injury reports indicated tear gas exposure, mostly self-deployed. Oddly enough, despite the largest public assembly of 2nd amendment supporters in our history, and despite hundreds of undercover Federal officers in the crowd egging people on, not one firearm was brandished by any Trump supporter that day. Not one. Law enforcement officers are regularly trained on the use of less lethal munitions and the hurdle to justify their usage is very high due to the significant probability of serious injury. Based on my training and experience, that high hurdle was clearly not met on J6. The officers shown indiscriminately deploying these munitions on unarmed civilians without warning should turn in their badges and apologize to the nation for breaking their sworn oath to protect and serve. Disclaimer: This article represents the viewpoint of the author in his personal capacity and is not intended to speak for or represent the views of the Ravalli County Sheriff’s Office in any way.

If you did not know your own birthday, when would you celebrate it? No one knows the date Frederick Douglass was born. In Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, his first autobiography, Douglass writes: “I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it...A want of information concerning my own [birthday] was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood.”   Free children knew their birthdays, and this gave them a sense of individuality that, according to Douglass, was sorely lacking in enslaved children. What’s worse is that Douglass did not even know who his father was (though he suspected it was one of his white slave masters) and spent most of his childhood separated from his mother. She lived on a different plantation twelve miles away, and she could only make the journey by night to visit her son a handful of times.   Nevertheless, his relationship with his mother had a lasting impact on him. In My Bondage and My Freedom, his second autobiography, Douglass tells the story of how he learned he was “somebody’s child” when his mother stood up for him against a cruel slave woman responsible for caring for the children in the plantation house. After the incident, Douglass recounts that his mother gave him a cake: “The ‘sweet cake’ my mother gave me was in the shape of a heart, with a rich, dark ring glazed upon the edge of it. I was victorious, and well off for the moment; prouder, on my mother’s knee, than a king upon his throne.” However, this victorious feeling would be fleeting, and he would never see her again.   And so, to honor his bond with his mother, Douglass chose to celebrate his birthday on February 14—Valentine’s Day.   The Personal Consequences of American Slavery   This episode in Douglass’s life is only one example of the deeply personal consequences American slavery had upon the enslaved. In our free online course on “Civil Rights in American History,” Dr. Kevin Portteus describes the nature of slavery, citing the words of Douglass, and others, to piece together how the institution was inhumane, unjust, and a significant departure from the principles of the American Founding. The conditions Douglass experienced as a slave were meant to make him unfit for the life of a free human being. As Dr. Portteus says, slavery is “in many ways a war against nature. Frederick Douglass describes the various ways in which the institution of slavery corrupts everything it touches.”   A mother could not be with her son, and a son did not know his father. And this was by design. Douglass never had a chance at a normal family life. Despite growing up enslaved, Douglass would go on to be a prominent defender of Founding principles. He believed that a fuller adherence to those principles was the key to incorporating black people into society. As Dr. Portteus explains, “he believed that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence provided the proper framework for the establishment of liberty and justice for the slaves of this country.”   Douglass knew the depths of injustice better than most. While his personal story is worthy of study in its own right, his political arguments become even more significant in light of the circumstances into which he was born.

It’s a question that hasn’t been fully answered. You might say it was attacked by a silent weapon engineered for quiet wars. Others, “officially” state the attack is a case of mistaken identity. Survivors claim it wasn’t. And while history is written by the victorious, the truth always lingers among those who survive.   Thanks to such brave souls willing to speak out, we have a fairly good idea of what actually happened: On June 8, 1967, naval intelligence vessel USS Liberty was monitoring the unfolding Israeli/Egyptian conflict. Then came flybys of unmarked aircraft. Those same aircraft later opened fire with machine guns, rockets, and napalm bombs. Torpedo boats with Israeli markings also took part, severely crippling the Liberty.   Killed by the attack were 43 servicemen, and 171 were wounded. American liberty was attacked that day, in what appeared to be deliberate cover-up that left more questions than answers. Survivors were given orders not to talk about the attack, even to the extent that the NSA monitored the homes and communications of survivors. There was very little coverage of the attack as a result.   American diplomat George Ball had this to say about the aftermath:   “Israel's leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America's leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.”   Restoring Liberty with Truth You can draw parallels to the current state of liberty in our country. The USS Liberty was attacked in secret and denied publicly, much like the suppression of our liberties and freedoms today. And, with little acknowledgment from institutions we are supposed to trust. Remember, in this era of “disclosure” and “awakening”, anything less than full transparency is still a deception. A partial truth can sometimes conceal other secrets.   Keep that in mind if the JFK or MLK Jr. files are released. It’s also why congressional hearings on UFO encounters will continue feeling scripted. And don’t expect any real investigation on 9/11. The USS Liberty was attacked over 60 years ago, if that’s any indication of how long denial and silence can last in a government.   “The Truth is Out There”   Yet, this article wouldn’t exist if the lies, secrecy, and propaganda were successful. In a way, the truth is already out there for those who want to know.   Proverbs 25:2 teaches us: “It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.”   Whistleblowers, alt-media, and independent reporters can reveal much. People seeking answers usually find them if they’re willing to do some digging. It ultimately shows you who, and what, is actually worthy of your trust. And it’s far more liberating than living a life built upon a foundation of lies.

By: Rand Paul, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, Author, Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up The following is adapted from a talk delivered on November 1, 2023, at the Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship on Hillsdale’s Washington, D.C., campus, as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. The Covid cover-up began in China. But in a way we make too big a deal of that. No one should be surprised that a totalitarian government run by the Chinese Communist Party would seek to cover up its responsibility for a worldwide pandemic. What was mind-jarring—and what we should focus our attention on—is the cover-up in our own country spearheaded by Dr. Anthony Fauci and his fellow public health bureaucrats. And they might have gotten away with their deception if a federal judge hadn’t ordered their emails released.   In brief, these emails reveal that at the same time Dr. Fauci and other public health “experts” were publicly disavowing the idea that the Covid virus originated with a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, they were in general agreement among themselves that that was likely what had happened. So why hide the fact?   In January 2020, Fauci was told that the Covid virus appeared “inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” He and his fellow scientists were worried that it may have originated in the Wuhan lab because they knew that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), under Fauci’s direction, had been funding work at the lab for years. They also knew of a paper by Ralph Baric and Shi Zhengli describing gain-of-function research—which involves taking two viruses and combining their genetics to create something more dangerous, more lethal, or more contagious—on various coronaviruses at the Wuhan lab. On February 1, just before 3:00 a.m., Fauci sent an email to Robert Kadlec, then-Secretary for Preparedness and Response at Health and Human Services. It read: “This just came out today. Gives a balanced view.” He attached an article published in Science arguing that Covid had jumped from bats to humans and seeking to discredit the lab-leak theory. When this email came to light, I was initially puzzled about its timing and urgency. But then I learned that one of Kadlec’s duties was to chair the committee responsible for screening gain-of-function proposals for safety purposes—and that the Wuhan coronavirus research proposal never came before his committee!   For a long time, even we in the U.S. Senate didn’t know that Kadlec headed the gain-of-function screening committee because of the pervasive secrecy throughout our government. The makeup of the committee is a secret, its deliberations are secret, and those on the committee do not like answering questions asked by the American people’s elected leaders in Congress. To this day, it is an open question how gain-of-function research was funded in Wuhan without committee review. It is not a stretch to think that someone with authority skirted the safety review process. If so, that person would have had a good reason to be very worried, even to the point of dishonesty, when the pandemic broke out.   Jeremy Farrar, the Anthony Fauci of the UK, told his brother that in the early stages of the pandemic, “a few scientists, including me, were beginning to suspect this might be a lab accident.” Farrar writes in his book Spike: “During that period, I would do things I had never done before: acquire a burner phone, hold clandestine meetings, keep difficult secrets.” Indeed, many Western bureaucrats, especially in the U.S., began using various forms of communication to shield their messages from future records requests. We have an email from one of Fauci’s assistants instructing other government employees to avoid using government email addresses. Which, by the way, is a crime.   Kristian G. Andersen, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, headed up a group of virologists who, by his own account, were “prompted by Jeremy Farrar, Tony Fauci, and [National Institutes of Health Director] Francis Collins” to research and publish a paper that would “provide agnostic and scientifically informed hypotheses around the origins of the virus.” Andersen had written to Farrar a week earlier, alarmed by the fact that the virus appeared to be manmade. But now, under pressure, he and others were circling the wagons and changing their tune. By mid-February, British zoologist Peter Daszak, president of EcoHealth Alliance and a Fauci ally, organized a letter that was published in The Lancet stating that the authors stood together “to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.” What the letter failed to mention is the fact that Daszak’s organization received many millions of taxpayer dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the State Department—before and during the pandemic—and that millions were funneled through EcoHealth to the Wuhan lab, some of which went to coronavirus research.  In March, the Andersen group’s paper, arguing that Covid didn’t come from a lab, was published in Nature Medicine. By that time, corporate media and Big Tech had taken to labeling anyone who supported the lab-leak theory as a purveyor of misinformation and disinformation. An ABC News article that cited the Andersen paper is a case in point: “Sorry, conspiracy theorists. Study concludes COVID-19 ‘is not a laboratory construct.’”   As we now know—thanks to the release of the Twitter Files following Elon Musk’s purchase of the company—the mainstream media and Big Tech did not act alone. In fact, many of their efforts to censor speech about the lab-leak theory, lockdowns, masks, vaccines, school closures, and a host of pandemic-related topics were directed by the FBI and other intelligence agencies. In other words, the First Amendment was thrown out the window.   The moral debate over gain-of-function research has been going on for a long time. It came to prominence with the debate over avian flu research in the early 2010s. Avian flu is a very bad disease, but like most animal viruses, it is adapted for its host—in this case chickens or other birds. It does not often infect humans, but when it does, certain strains kill up to 50 percent of those infected.   During an outbreak in 2010, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier wondered if it would be possible to make the avian flu contagious through the air to mammals, and his research became highly controversial. Proponents argued that it could provide valuable data for scientists to predict or combat future pandemics. Opponents argued that it could cause pandemics either through lab leaks or terrorism. Fauci was intimately familiar with this debate, because Fouchier’s research was funded by Fauci’s agency, and he argued at the time that the potential benefits outweighed the risks.   A growing number of virologists and other scientists worry that a lab leak will happen again, and with even more serious consequences. With Covid, the mortality rate was far less than one percent. Experiments are now being carried out with viruses that have the potential for mortality rates between 15 and 50 percent. In 2021, MIT biochemist Kevin Esvelt wrote:   Once we consider the possibility of misuse [of gain-of-function research], let alone creative misuse, such research looks like a gamble that civilization can’t afford to risk. . . I implore every scientist, funder, and nation working in this field: Please stop. No more trying to discover or make pandemic-capable viruses, enhance their virulence, or assemble them more easily. No more attempting to learn which components allow viruses to efficiently infect or replicate within human cells, or to devise inheritable ways to evade immunity. No more experiments likely to disseminate blueprints for plagues.   The potential for disaster cannot be overstated. Right now, people can order synthetic DNA on the internet, and if they know what they’re doing, they can make the polio virus, among many others. And there are increasing numbers of individuals who have the knowhow: according to Esvelt, “The U.S. grants 125 doctoral degrees in virology each year, accounting for one-third of the total worldwide. At least four times as many individuals with degrees in related fields . . . possess similar skills.”   The required information is publicly available due to taxpayer-funded initiatives to identify all the viruses in the world. With the support of people like Peter Daszak and Bill Gates, the U.S. has been the top international funder of pandemic virus identification for decades. This should give us pause: these programs involve digging rare viruses out of caves where humans might never encounter them and transporting them to major metropolitan areas, manipulating viruses to make them more dangerous and transmissible, and publishing the resulting knowledge to the world.   Even if the goal is preventing future pandemics, the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t add up. While advocates for identifying the world’s viruses argue that the knowledge gained will aid in developing vaccines, decades of virus identification have been fruitless, as no human vaccine has been developed in advance of a human epidemic.  Even if the goal is preventing future pandemics, the risk-benefit ratio doesn’t add up. While advocates for identifying the world’s viruses argue that the knowledge gained will aid in developing vaccines, decades of virus identification have been fruitless, as no human vaccine has been developed in advance of a human epidemic. If we continue down this path, Esvelt believes that “deliberate pandemics” will kill “many more people than identification could save.”   To think that we can prevent future pandemics, even as we continue to seek, catalog, and manipulate dangerous viruses, is the height of hubris. Over the last few years, public health “experts” were wrong about almost everything. If we are to avoid these kinds of catastrophes in the future, we must reform government and rein in out-of-control scientists and their enablers.   In December 2022, Congress passed a 4,155-page spending bill. It had a price tag of $1.7 trillion, including over a trillion dollars that had to be borrowed. It was appropriately called an “omni,” since everything but the kitchen sink was thrown in. On page 3,354, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was directed “not [to] fund research conducted by a foreign entity at a facility located in a country of concern . . . involving pathogens of pandemic potential or biological agents or toxins.”   This was a welcome attempt to stop the funding of dangerous research around the world, but Americans and their representatives must watch carefully to see whether our public health agencies attempt to sidestep it. The recent behavior of NIAID and NIH bureaucrats, as exemplified by their attempts to deceive Congress and the American people during the Covid pandemic, does not instill confidence.   A group of 34 prominent scientists recently presented a series of reforms to “strengthen the US government’s enhanced potential pandemic pathogen framework.” This Gain-of-Function Reform Group (GoF Group) recommended that gain-of-function experiments that confer “efficient human transmissibility” on a pathogen should be regulated. Adopting this standard would explicitly stop bureaucrats like Fauci from dancing around the gain-of-function definition and looking the other way as researchers create viruses that spread more easily in humans.   Current regulations allow gain-of-function research to occur if the research is said to be concerned with “developing and producing” vaccines. However, dangerous research should not be permitted or funded on the basis of a potential product. Rather, we should ban clearly dangerous research and highly scrutinize anything else that “could enhance the virulence or transmissibility of any pathogen,” as the GoF Group recommends.   We should treat this research as we do nuclear weapons—as the potential threat to human life is even greater. Ideally, as Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright recommends, “responsibility for US oversight of gain- of-function research of concern should be assigned to a single, independent federal agency that does not perform research and does not fund research. The oversight of research on fissionable materials by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides a precedent and a model.”   Another pervasive problem is conflict of interest. Under our current lax guidelines, researchers can essentially approve their own grants if they toe the official bureaucratic line. Consider the particularly egregious example of Kristian Andersen receiving a million-dollar grant mere months after abruptly switching his scientific opinion on Covid’s origin from a likely lab leak to “natural spillover.” We have always known that recipients of federal dollars might try to game the system. Conflict of interest regulations are littered throughout the federal code. One would think recusal for a conflict of interest would be the standard fallback procedure for all federal science funding. Yet when I questioned Fauci about whether any of the scientists on the vaccine-approval boards also received royalties from the drug companies that make vaccines, he responded that he did not have to inform Congress about royalty payments. In addition to the fact that he was the highest paid employee of the federal government, his own net worth is estimated to have doubled to more than $12.5 million during the pandemic. This is an insult to the American taxpayer and the American ideal. We should not allow this kind of obvious corruption. The GoF Group calls for regulators to “recuse any individual whose agency is funding or participating in the proposed [gain-of-function research] from decision making in the [pandemic] review process.” Reviewers “should be subject to conflict of interest rules.” They also recommended including “representatives of civil society” in the review of potential pandemic pathogens. For several years, I have proposed something similar for all grants funded by the federal government. Even before I became aware of the extent of Fauci’s abusive reign, I introduced the BASIC Research Act, which would add at least one scientist to each funding committee from a major field of research that has unanimity of support, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. The goal is to create more debate on the best use of limited government research funds. I would also add a taxpayer advocate to all funding committees. Perhaps then we would start to question absurd “scientific” research grants, such as the $2.3 million the NIH spent injecting beagle puppies with cocaine, or the $3 million NIH grant to put hamsters on steroids and watch them fight.   In addition, my legislation would prohibit grant applicants from requesting their own friends for funding review. We should also make all federal grant applications public.   To prevent what happened during the Covid pandemic from happening again, Congress must address the concentration of power over long periods of time in the hands of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. In particular, it should divide the power of the NIAID into three separate institutes overseeing allergic diseases, infectious diseases, and immunologic diseases. Each institute should be led by a director who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a limited term of five years.   Anthony Fauci—who wielded tremendous power over many decades— funded dangerous research, lied to Congress and the American people, flip-flopped on many of his prognostications, issued edicts that defied science, and attacked and smeared his scientific critics. His reprehensible behavior reminded me of nothing so much as C.S. Lewis’s description of the moral busybody: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive....... [T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”  We the American people must not allow bureaucratic “experts” to endanger our lives, lie to us, or curtail our constitutional rights. Never again!!!

Def: Default: Failure to do something...to fail to take part in... (ie.making healthy choices). Its you body, your health, your choice.   If we don’t understand these major reasons that cause us to lose our health and practice strategies to counter them, we default to illness and shorter lives. “We are living shorter and dying longer.” Ray Strang MD - author of Death by Prescription.   1.  Eating Choices: By trusting in the integrity of grocery stores, food manufacturers, and regulatory agencies (FDA, etc.) we want to believe they have our health, nutrition and food safety as their prime objective. Nothing could be further from the truth.   First of all, where are we learning anything, much less the truth about basic nutrition, the role of nutrients such as vitamins, minerals and enzymes in health? Not even in medical schools or nursing schools is this being taught. It is estimated that only 6% of graduating medical students have any formal training in nutrition.   The “top schools” in nutrition are funded to a large extent and given grants and research facilities paid for by Big Ag, the food industry and the sugar industry. (No conflicts of interest there!)   Ask yourself this: Why do all feed for animals have a nutrition profile of nutrients attached to the bags? Why is the profile different from baby chicks to laying hens, for ducks to rabbits? (And yet, they don’t usually have an ORGANIC OR non-GMO” ingredients feed available unless you specifically ask for them, and are willing to pay a higher price.) “You are what you eat”.   Now ask yourself: Why aren’t nutrition profiles showing detailed nutrient profiles on the food we buy to feed ourselves and our families? If I understand the health implications for my animals – why would I not have even more concern for myself and my family?   Seed oils are industrial oils that are harmful to our health and yet they comprise approximately 30% of our caloric intake. Processed and ultra-processed foods are a mainstay of most Americans as well as food derived from large monoculture farms where poor soil stewardship has caused catastrophic loss of nutrients. GMO food comprise a huge part of what we eat, and these pose health problems on a scale that never existed prior to the mid 1990’s when GMO’s were first rolled out.   2.  EMF’s: (Electrical Magnetic Fields). Since the 1860s we live in an increasingly electrified world, starting with the telegraph, electricity for lights and telephones, radar, microwaves, satellites, cellphones, radar, routers, computers, “smart” appliances, “smart meters” etc., where we take for granted that these devices and inventions are beneficial, and have little to no health downside. We are being radiated and are radiating ourselves both voluntarily and involuntarily into poor health, infertility and shortened lives.   3.  Medical interventions: We have all but lost medical freedom in the United States. We have been propagandized into believing that the Pharmaceutical / Medical model (CARTEL) is “SAFE and EFFECTIVE”. (“With few exceptions it is neither.) So from birth to death we will only get petrochemical derived drugs from an ever increasing number of recommended vaccinations and medications. Have we not recently seen where even long proven, safe, inexpensive, and effective drugs like Ivermectin and Hydroxychloriquine were suddenly declared unproven and unsafe, and we were mandated into a very expensive and very unsafe “end of life” drug Remdesivir (Remdeathisnear), that has had a documented fatality rate of close to 25%? Where we were mandated to get an unproven “vaccine” (now known to be a “bioweapon” according to Nobel Peace Prize nominee, Dr. Ben Marble M.D.) that from the president down to the directors of the NIH and CDC were promising us that it was “safe and effective”, only to find out no safety studies were conducted, and it is estimated that over 3 times the number of people who allegedly died from COVID died from the “vaccine”. In addition, if you were “vaccinated” you were multiple times more likely to get COVID. We are not the priority, politics and money are the priority.  Recently the number one vaccinologist in the United States, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, just admitted vaccines are not properly studied – neither pre-licensure nor post – licensure. Ex-Pfizer VP Mike Yeadon stated that there is “No Evidence” the COVID Viruses “Actually Exists”. Recent reports show that at least 55 undeclared chemical elements were found in COVID-19 shots, and that self-assembly nanotechnology in vaccinations and medication delivery are “everywhere now”. 4. Allergies and Sensitivities: We have been propagandized and gas-lighted into believing that allergies (protein based) and sensitivities (non-protein based) are just basically inconvenient and irritating for the most part, affecting our sinuses and upper respiratory system (runny nose), headaches, sneezing, itchy skin, hives or even life threatening inability to breathe. There are pharmaceutical products for all of these, but we are not informed that it is possible to connect the dots to many other painful and dangerous conditions, through muscle response testing, such as autism, organ dysfunction, blood pressure elevation, strokes/TIAs, chronic back and joint subluxations and pain, to name just a few. These effect structure, organs and chemistry, and brain function. (These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA nor are they likely to be) but I have seen proof of this and successfully eliminated them in my clinic. And they affect everyone!! Why? Arthur Firstenberg in his excellent book on EMFs “The Invisible Rainbow” – A History of Electricity and Life” states that EMFs cause allergies. Anyone you know on this planet that is not exposed to EMFs? Also, we know that antibiotics and Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up), which is sprayed on most of the foods we eat, kill the “good” bacteria in our gut that are responsible for keeping the “tight junctions” tight in our small intestines. This prevents “leaky gut”, or the ability for food particles, bacteria, parasites, etc. from getting through into our blood which will cause antibodies to be formed to combat them, leading not only to allergies and sensitivities but also autoimmune conditions to result. This is why everyone needs to be on a GOOD probiotic with good prebiotics. Another reason is the consumption of GMO food: Dr. Vyvyan Howard, professor of Bio Imaging and Toxic Pathology, University of Ulster, Londonberry, Ireland states:" Swapping genes between organisms can produce unknown toxic effects and allergies that are most likely to effect children.”   5.  Emotions: We all have emotions every day, but some emotions can become toxic and drive us into ill health and painful subluxation patterns. One sign of this is that even with repeated adjustments the painful joints just won’t stabilize. Other causes of the unstable subluxation could be nutritional deficiencies causing organ or gland dysfunction (visceral-somatic reflex) or other causes, but with muscle response testing, emotional involvement is easy to ascertain and remedy.   6.  Toxicity: According to a study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) blood samples from newborn babies contained an average of 287 toxins, including mercury, fire retardants, pesticides, and chemicals from non-stick products. Of the 287 chemicals EWG detected in umbilical cord blood, it’s known that 180 cause cancer in humans and animals; 217 are toxic to your brain and nervous system; and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests.   There are other reasons, not mentioned, but through the specificity of muscle response testing, generally they can be identified with energy matching and a solution can be found.

Mr. Webster persuasively reasons for the peoples’ right to establish qualifications for their elected officials and acknowledges the importance of Massachusetts’ “respect and attachment to Christianity” through the retention of a constitutional provision requiring a profession of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for holding public office. Daniel Webster’s remarks regarding the committee’s report provides compelling reasoning which should be considered by every American voter today. Webster’s comments emphasize the importance of Christian leaders and Christian principles in civil government. In the report, delivered on December 4th, 1820, Webster explained: His Speech It is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first resolution is the omission of the declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for office in the cases of the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of the legislature. I shall content myself on this occasion with stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select committee, as I understand them, on the subject of this resolution. Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure. There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. ” Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws.” Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State. These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. Between two candidates otherwise equally qualified, the people at an election may decide in favor of one because he is a Christian and against the other because he is not. They may repeat this preference at the next election on the same ground and may continue it from year to year.   Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man’s conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. But however clear the right may be (and I can hardly suppose any gentleman will dispute it), the expediency of retaining the declaration is a more difficult question. It is said not to be necessary, because in this Commonwealth ninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Christian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to places of public trust. There is as much security, it is said, on this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there is a sort of opprobrium incident to this qualification – a marking out, for observation and censorious remark, of a single individual, or a very few individuals, who may not be able to make the declaration – it is an act if not of injustice, yet of unkindness and of unnecessary rigor, to call on such individuals to make the declaration and to exclude them from office if they refuse to do so. There is also another class of objections which have been stated. It has been said that there are many very devout and serious persons, persons who esteem the Christian religion to be above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declaration seem somewhat too strong and intense. They seem, to these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is deemed essential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all fit to be adopted as a declaration of belief in Christianity in a more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms; that they imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revelation and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which establish its authenticity. There may, however, and there appears to be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought to be respected. I was not aware, before I attended the discussions in the committee, of the extent to which this objection prevailed. There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security. I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity – not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms but to its general principles.

"What Does A Healthy Church Look Like" Definition of healthy- a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being not merely the absence of disease or infirmities.   As we read the Bible we find that God is really good to tell us what a healthy Church should look like. As I have read through the scriptures, it has become very clear that sadly we have a lot of unhealthy Churches that need to be cleaned up.   People build the structure of a Church. The Church is people. I remember when I first became a Christian and actually started to understand that the Church is more than just a building, things started to make more sense to me.   A healthy Church with wise, Godly people will build a Church structure the way God says to. Wise humble people will admit when they have made a mistake while building and they will clean it up.   The Bible does in fact talk a lot about how to build a healthy church and how to treat one another. Remember, the church is made up of people.   A Full Gospel Church Is A Healthy Church   I know at times this is a controversial subject. But when I read through the Bible what always hits my heart is that it shouldn't be, because it's VERY clear in scripture. At the end of this article you will find many scriptures that tell us what a healthy church should look like and also ones on to how to treat one another.   I encourage you to dig into the scriptures, really read them in a whole to understand. I have shared some but there are MANY more. Let go of any pride you may have and let God speak to you. Pay attention to the scriptures that use the words, All, Each Of You, Sons And Daughters, Co Laborers, He Gave Some, One Another.   A Healthy Church   1. Healthy Churches Teach About the "Gifts Of The Holy Spirit". They will see the gifts in others and build them up. They will help disciple the people in the gifts. A secessionist church is NOT a healthy church. Those churches remind me of the scripture in 1 Timothy that says, having a form of godliness, but denying the power of from such turn away.   Yes, there are good people sitting in those churches who love Jesus. But they are missing out on all God has for them. And they are being deceived by the teaching that the gifts have ceased, they are NOT being taught the full gospel. Again when you read the Bible and go through all the scriptures you will clearly see that the "Five Fold Church" and walking in the "Gifts" is apart of the "Full Gospel of Jesus Christ" Just like growing in the "Fruits Of The Spirit" is part of the Full Gospel.   There are some Churches that believe the gifts are active today, but they are not practicing the gifts yet as a congregation. They are working towards introducing the gifts to the people. They are not unhealthy Churches, they believe the scriptures and are working towards becoming a Full Gospel Church.   2.Healthy Churches Encourage One Another. Often times in unhealthy Churches, there are always some people whose gifts are highlighted and built up within the church structure. While other people walking in their spiritual gifts are overlooked. They need some encouragement in walking out what God has called A healthy Church will encourage everyone, understanding that they are all a team. No one is more important than the other. Walk in your gifts and encourage others to do so as well. Don't let anyone talk down to you when you share that you need encouragement. Jesus called us to encourage one another, he knew we needed it. 3. Healthy Churches Will Allow A Woman To Preach or Teach. They will read the whole Bible in context and understand that women preached throughout the Bible. There were in fact women leaders that preached to men. There were women leading home churches with their husbands, there were women leaders within the Church in general. Healthy churches will welcome the voices of Godly women and will build them up. When you read through the scriptures there were so many women who led and prophesied in great capacity.  I spent many hours researching this subject when someone tried to tell me that women are not allowed to speak from the pulpit. When we read the whole Bible on the subject in it's full context you will find women did in fact prophesy (Preach) to other men and women. A healthy Church understands that a woman giving the word does NOT mean that she is trying to take authority over the Pastor or disrespect him. She is sharing the word God gave her to preach to his people. Churches that silence women are NOT healthy. I encourage you to get out of them. Its pretty amazing how they misinterpret the scripture that says a woman is not to preach and be silent. They overlook the other scriptures where God talks about his daughters and calls them to prophesy (PREACH).  They don't try to understand what Paul was saying in that time to the culture. BUT yet they also don't enforce the scriptures that say a woman is not to wear pants, not to wear jewelry and is to have a covering over her head, and that she is saved through child birth! Interesting that they leave out pushing all that on women but focus on them remaining silent. Unhealthy Churches won't dig into the scriptures to find out what it really means in its context. Read the scriptures for yourself. You might be surprised at what you find.  4. Healthy Churches Hold People Accountable. There is a major lack of accountability within our Churches. Accountability is Biblical, control is not. Many pastors and leaders get away with abuse and other sins they are actively walking in. I encourage you to get out of those Churches and find a Church that holds people accountable.  My greatest moments of growth, greatest moments of conviction and repentance came from being in Full Gospel Churches. That held me accountable, encouraged my spiritual growth and did not silence me. They taught me the Full Gospel.  Also, if you know that people are being abused SPEAK UP! You could be saving a life by doing so. Jesus would not be silent and neither should you. Healthy Churches do not use scriptures taken out of context to convince people who are being abused to stay with the abusers. Nor do they try to convince a wife to submit to her abusive husband. Nor do they teach people to obey a Pastor no matter what he does. Yes God hates divorce BUT he also hates abuse and does NOT expect his daughters to stay in it.  5. Healthy Churches Have A Good Understanding Of Deliverance And Discipline. Healthy churches understand that Jesus did in fact cast out demons, and he said his people would do so also. He said it several times throughout scripture. He also said, Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.". John 14:12  A Healthy Church understands that there should not be people sitting in Church every week in bondage to a demonic stronghold. Yes, Christians can be oppressed by demons but NOT possessed. A Healthy Church also knows that not everything is demonic oppression. Some struggles come from not enough spiritual discipline or self control. In those cases surrender to The Holy Spirit and discipleship is needed. I have heard so many testimonies from people who left churches that did not belie demonic oppression that they had suffered from for many years. Deliverance IS part of the Full Gospel. Churches that don't believe in deliverance have hurt many people. 6. Healthy Churches Will Deal With Conflict When It Comes. As I said before, all Churches make mistakes, its part of learning and growing. Healthy Churches will have moments of healthy conflict. It grows them and makes them strong. Unhealthy Churches push the conflict under the rug and bully people. Healthy Churches grow in dealing with it a loving and respectful way. And of course you always have those in the church that try to start unnecessary conflict, it is important to put a stop to that before it gets out of control. And sadly, in some cases, you may even have to ask someone to leave the church. I have witnessed unhealthy Church structures become healthy as the leaders repent. There is hope for them. Pray for them. 7. Healthy Churches Will Teach Repentance A healthy church will teach about repentance and grace. It understands that the scriptures tell us, we are to repent and give our lives to Jesus. That he will give us the Holy Spirit to help us walk out our salvation and walk in holiness. It understands that when a Christian messes up, we are to repent, not justify the sin. They teach that God will continue to transform his people from glory to glory. A healthy Church will NOT teach that sin is ok. Churches that preach that repentance is not necessary and that you can act like the world and just include Jesus are dangerous for the souls of people. It's one thing to mess up. It is another thing to live in willful sin. Jesus is very clear on that. Some unhealthy Churches like to preach that Jesus hung out with the sinners only. They leave out that he led them to repentance and did not participate in the sin. We all choose what Church we go to. It will benefit us greatly if we look to The Holy Spirit to guide us in choosing a Church. Churches that mock Full Gospel Churches , mock those that walk in the Gifts Of The Holy Spirt, that are abusive and cover it up, and that silence women need to repent. The scriptures encourage us to look for a healthy Church to be apart of, you will be happy you did. They are out there. Don't let the abuse and lack of understanding scripture in some Churches cause you to give up. Keep Searching! Scriptures That Support A Healthy Church And The Gifts Of The Holy Spirit 1 Corn 12, 1 Corn 14, Romans 12, Ephesians 4, 1 Peter 4: 8-11, Hebrews 2:4, 1 Thes 5:11-22, Mark 16: 17-18, Romans 1:11-12, Romans 15:5, Collosians 3:16, Jude 20, Romans 8:27, Revelation 2 & 3, Acts 2:17, Joel 2:28, Romans 16:1-2, Acts 16, Acts 18. Matthew 8:16, Luke 9:1, Luke 10:17, Acts 21:9, Acts 18:26, Phili 4: 2-3, Romans 16:7, Micah 6:4,

By: Theresa Manzella Over the last four years, the Biden Administration allowed 11 million illegal immigrants to enter our nation. Through loose citizenship policies and weak border surveillance, communities in every state have experienced an influx of non-citizen residents. This has caused: Numerous Americans to lose job opportunities, Harmful drugs to be distributed, and Crime rates to increase due to a lack of sufficient local law enforcement resources. Furthermore, a consequence that has discreetly evolved from such practices is election fraud. Non-Citizen Voting and the Need for SB 185 A select group of states do not have laws on the books that ban non-citizens from voting in local elections, and an increasing number of communities allow such voting to occur. To combat this trend and prevent Montana from engaging in this indiscretion, I have introduced SB 185—a bill to present a constitutional amendment to Montana voters that will ensure only U.S. citizens and Montana residents can participate in our elections. Clarifying Montana’s Constitution The Montana Constitution  currently states: “Any citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older who meets the registration and residence requirements provided by law is a qualified elector.” This language may seem clear-cut in implying that only Montana residents and U.S. citizens can vote. However, five states with similarly written constitutions have permitted non-citizens to vote in local elections. People who have not fulfilled citizenship requirements are finding loopholes in these states’ laws that govern voter registration and are participating in elections that do not technically apply to them or have jurisdiction over them. What SB 185 Will Do Senate Bill 185 will provide Montanans with a ballot measure to amend our state constitution and ultimately specify that: “Only U.S. citizens and Montana residents” can engage in local elections. This is a commonsense proposal to ensure that people who are not bound by the laws of our land do not get to influence our local governing bodies. Next Steps for SB 185 SB 185 had its first hearing in the Senate State Administration Committee on Friday, Feb. 14th, and will be voted on by the committee in the coming days! I am passionate about this measure, and I enjoy my work in the legislature representing the people of Montana! — Theresa Manzella, SD44

By Amie Mitchell When you research Valentine's Day, you will find information that is believed to be true that states it started to honor St. Valentine (or Valentinus) of the third century AD, who was martyred. St. Valentine was working as a Roman priest during the reign of an emperor named Claudius. He believed that the reason the Roman army wasn’t as formidable as possible was because husbands wanted to stay at home with their wives and families instead of fighting in wars. So, Claudius made marriage and engagements illegal in Rome to get male soldiers to stay in the Roman army and not worry about their girlfriend back home. St. Valentine encouraged marriage, especially Christian marriage, and he married many couples in secret. When Claudius found out, he sentenced Valentine to execution. Most believe St. Valentine was killed during the year 270 AD, but some have debated the year. Valentine became a patron Saint of Love. It is said Valentine supposedly wrote a letter in prison signed “From your Valentine,”  giving birth to the tradition of sending love cards with the same signature. The world often promotes Cupid, which in Roman mythology, Cupid is the son of Venus, the goddess of love and beauty. Not a good idea to celebrate Cupid or buy anything with Cupid for Christians who want to honor Jesus. February: The Month of Expressing Love, Especially to That Special Someone On Valentine's Day, the world also promotes buying the one you love expensive gifts. Through advertising, they try to make people feel like if you are not going all out, then you must not love your wife or girlfriend. It is sad, really, the negative emotions it can bring out in people at times, who have bought those lies. My husband and I don't really make an overly big deal on Valentine's Day. In years past, it came and went, and we did nothing. We looked at it like we show each other love all year long through the things that we do for one another. But then, our thoughts changed a bit. We started to realize that going out to dinner, getting flowers, getting chocolate, or whatever gift that the one you love would like, is thoughtful, it brightens the day, and it is fun! When our kids were young, I used to make heart-shaped mini cakes for them or heart cookies on Valentine's Day. I would also give them a little card and some other little token of something I knew they would like. The point was for them to know that I thought of them and that I loved them. A Little Tip for Husbands and Boyfriends If your wives and girlfriends care about Valentine's Day, it's a good idea NOT to forget about them. Seriously, not a good idea to tell them that it shouldn’t matter to them, that it is just another day, and then not do anything for them. Let's just say that will not help your relationship very much. At the same time, do NOT fall for the lie that you have to spend large amounts of money and go broke. The point is for her to know you thought of her, for her to know that you know her. Don’t just grab some random gift. Put thought into who she is and what will speak love to her heart. And for Wives and Girlfriends... The same tip applies to wives and girlfriends. Some men out there enjoy Valentine's Day. Don't shame them for it. Be thoughtful of them. Again, the goal is for them to know you thought of them and know them as well. Teach Your Kids the Truth Those with kids, teach them who St. Valentine was. Because if they go to public school, they will be pushing the deception of Cupid on them. We all know the greatest celebration of love is that Jesus loved us so much He died for our sins. Above all things, people, have unfailing love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins, for love never fails.

By Dane Wigington GeoengineeringWatch.org Over 70 years ago the United States government and other global powers made the decision to deploy global climate engineering programs without the knowledge or consent of their citizens. Why would governments around the world participate in covert climate engineering programs? Perhaps the more appropriate question would be this, why wouldn't global power centers engage in patented climate modification operation for their own purposes and agendas? The answer is, they would, and they have, for over 70 years. Here are two examples of over 150 climate intervention related patents. Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming US 5003186 A — ABSTRACT “A method is described for reducing atmospheric of global warming resulting from the presence of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, i.e., from the greenhouse effect. Such gases are relatively transparent to sunshine, but absorb strongly the long-wavelength infrared radiation released by the earth. The method includes the step of seeding (with jet aircraft dispersions) the layer of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere with particles of materials characterized by wavelength-dependent emissivity. Such materials include Welsbach materials and the oxides of metals which have high emissivity (and thus low reflectivity's) in the visible and 8-12 micron infrared wavelength regions.” Weather modification method — US 3613992 A “The method of causing ice crystal formation in a mass of water droplets having a temperature less than +6 C., which comprises introducing into said mass of paricles a finely divided solid substance having a high solubility in water and a large endothermic heat of solution and selected from the group consisting of urea , potassium nitrate, potassium nitrite and ammonium nitrate”. The next patent example is for chemical ice nucleation”, the process of chemically nucleating precipitation that should have fallen as rain, into snow. This is a major tool for the climate engineers, and one that they utilize constantly in order to temporarily (and toxically) create a short-term surface cool-down. This is a primary factor with the rapidly increasing “weather whiplash” temperature swings, the now common above freezing temperature snow fall events, and the rapidly increasing extreme hail events. Tennessee Governor Bill Lee has now signed legislation into law that bans any form of climate engineering operations over the State of Tennessee. Courageous Tennessee lawmakers in the Senate and House had previously passed the legislation which put it on the governor's desk, it has now been signed into law. Though other states have tried, Tennessee has succeeded due to their solid, straightforward and simple bill. Now other states can follow suit by utilizing the Tennessee legislation as a template for their own. We need every state in America to follow what Tennessee has now successfully accomplished. All are needed in the critical battle to wake populations to what is coming, we must make every day count. Share credible data from a credible source, make your voice heard. HB 1700 -FN ... AN ACT prohibiting the intentional release of polluting emissions, including cloud seeding, weather modification, excessive electromagnetic radio frequency, and microwave radiation and making penalties for violation of such prohibition. ANALYSIS This bill establishes a regulatory process to prevent the intentional release of polluting emissions, in New Hampshire's atmosphere and at ground level and provides penalties for violations. This bill requires reports of such violations to be made by state officials and members of the public to the department of environmental services air resources division of compliance and requires New Hampshire county sheriffs carry to enforce the provisions. I. The general court finds that many atmospheric activities such as weather modification, stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), solar radiation modification (SRM), and other forms of geoengineering, involving the intentional release of polluting emissions, harm human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, wildlife, aviation, state security, and the economy of the state of New Hampshire. “Covert global climate engineering programs are the single most environmentally destructive assault the humane race has ever unleashed against nature and the entire web of life. The list of catastrophic environmental and human health consequences directly connected to the ongoing climate engineering insanity makes these programs mathematically the greatest and most immediate threat we collectively face short of nuclear cataclysm. Climate scientists claim that “solar radiation management” is the final option for cooling down our rapidly warming world, but is that the Truth? Are “climate intervention” programs actually mitigating the unfolding planetary meltdown? Or further fueling it overall?How can we expose and halt the global geoengineering omnicide before it is too late?