Category: General

  • Join the Live Experience & Fellowship with Like Minded People at the Premiere Screening of the Documentary “Follow the Silenced” – 9/17 7pm Nampa

  • Oppose H653 Do Not Protect Profit Over People

    If enacted, this H653 would absolve pesticide manufacturers of any accountability for harm caused by their products, regardless of the evidence of harm. Just two weeks ago, this crucial bill was defeated by a full Senate vote. Yet now, it resurfaces under a different number. Why the sleight of hand? To shield manufacturers from the repercussions of their unsafe products, placing profit above safety. Supported by Bayer, the company behind Monsanto’s Roundup, which has been embroiled in countless lawsuits due to its glyphosate-containing herbicide. Despite a staggering $10.9 billion settlement in 2020, H 653 seeks to grant sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers.

    We staunchly oppose this bill as it blatantly disregards public health in favor of protecting corporate interests.

    “If we have learned anything over these past few years, it is to not blindly trust the so-called experts; the mere fact that something has been designated as EPA compliant does not mean it isn’t causing cancer. I am hopeful that, with the preservation of the common citizen’s right to his day in court, the truth of actual health impacts will organically come to light through evidentiary proceedings.

    – Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4 (about the previous immunity granting bill sb1245 voted down in the Senate.)

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    LClow@house.idaho.gov, JCrane@house.idaho.gov, BCrane@house.idaho.gov, JPalmer@house.idaho.gov, VBar@house.idaho.gov, SDixon@house.idaho.gov, KAndrus@house.idaho.gov, RFurniss@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, JCornilles@house.idaho.gov, JEhlers@house.idaho.gov, GLanting@house.idaho.gov, JPetzke@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, SBerch@house.idaho.gov, BGreen@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: H653 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, H653 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. H653 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by H653 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject H653. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • Senate Health and Welfare Committee 2024

    JVanOrden@senate.idaho.gov, ALee@senate.idaho.gov, MHarris@senate.idaho.gov, CBjerke@senate.idaho.gov, GZuiderveld@senate.idaho.gov, MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov, RTaylor@senate.idaho.gov,

  • STOP FUTURE MASKS MANDATES IN IDAHO H493

    HFI SUPPORTS THIS BILL
    H 493 Mask mandates, prohibition Rep. Gallagher

    Feb 14 this bill passed the Committee Unanimously Approved to be heard on the House Floor!

    Now it moves to the Senate State Affairs Committee

    JGuthrie@senate.idaho.gov, TBernt@senate.idaho.gov, CWinder@senate.idaho.gov, KAnthon@senate.idaho.gov, MHarris@senate.idaho.gov, ALee@senate.idaho.gov, BToews@senate.idaho.gov, MWintrow@senate.idaho.gov, JRuchti@senate.idaho.gov

    Last year a similar bill passed the House but died before it got a vote in Senate. The bill was introduced again this year and it prohibits the state government and any of its political subdivisions from mandating the use of a face mask, face shield, or other face covering to prevent the spread of disease even in the state of emergency. Political subdivisions include county and city governments, school districts, and public health districts, but does not include hospitals or health care facilities.


    “The government doesn’t have the right to tell the people how to care for their bodies during times of sickness or health because the government doesn’t have rights, the people do.
    When it comes to requiring masks the government must be constrained from infringing on people’s natural rights like it did during the Covid debacle.”

    Miste Karlfeldt

    Government was instituted to protect the inherent rights of the people. Those rights include how people choose to care for themselves. Illness and risk are part of life. Each person is responsible for deciding how to handle them. The government has no authority over our health decisions. Each person is sovereign, with bodily autonomy. Forcing a medical procedure or medical device on a person is a violation of their autonomy and inherent right of self-determination. Masks are dangerous and ineffective at preventing the spread of disease. But regardless of efficacy, forcing them on the people is tyrannical and a completely unacceptable overreach.

    Sarah Clendenon

    We remember the mask mandates which recently blanketed our cities and counties, many which carried the possibility of fines and imprisonment. We remember when the city of Moscow arrested three Christians peacefully singing psalms outside without masks, and when two men were arrested in Ada County for allegedly failing to appear in court when they would not mask up while trying to perform their duty of entering the courthouse. We remember witnessing a litany of abuses of power on a shocking scale with our own eyes, and we will not return to sleep.

    Not only did the mandates constitute a basic violation of individual liberty, but citizens were justified in feeling insulted as well. The CDC which we were told to blindly obey has waffled on the effectiveness of masks. It is very easy to get mechanistic studies to say whatever one wants by failing to control for any one of hundreds of variables; however, randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of effectiveness research, clearly indicate that masking doesn’t work. Evidence on a policy scale also shows that mandates don’t work.

    The fact that mandates tended to allow masks of very low quality raises questions as to what the actual goal was. The required “coverings” undoubtedly resulted in a moist petri dish on one’s face, with the expected consequences. The emotional toll it took on children should have been a consideration along with the impact on their mental health and social development. Avoiding the many cognitive and health issues associated with cortisol levels increased by mask-induced mouth-breathing should also have been considered. The list of severe concerns goes on. Keeping in mind the utter confusion of the whole ordeal, it is understandable that many wondered if this effort to occlude the human face was not below the surface a more fundamental attempt to obscure the image of God with which we were made, and the requirement to blindly obey not a precursor to something worse.

    Overall, no matter the rationale of various mandates, I have already been given ample evidence not to put too much trust in government, and I also believe that those coercive policies are outside the valid role of government. House Bill 493 responds to this reality by prohibiting government entities from mandating masks, with the exception of vocations where it is already integral to wear them. Local jurisdictions retain all powers that would not infringe on the individual’s rights. This legislation has my full support.

    Ben Toews Idaho State Senator District 4

    TALKING POINTS:

    **1. Effectiveness of Surgical Masks:**

    The efficacy of surgical masks remains inconclusive despite widespread belief in their effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have struggled to provide definitive conclusions, with cumulative reviews highlighting the limitations of available evidence

    **2. Hazards of Wearing a Mask:**

    Wearing masks may inadvertently create conducive environments for the proliferation of pathogens, as increased sweating around the mouth can encourage bacterial survival. Additionally, prolonged mask-wearing, especially among children, poses risks to respiratory health, including discomfort, skin irritation, and breathing difficulties.

    **3. Psychological and Societal Impacts:**
    The psychological and societal impacts of prolonged mask use cannot be overlooked. Studies suggest that extended mask-wearing can lead to mental fatigue, decreased cognitive performance, and heightened psychological distress, particularly among vulnerable populations. The imposition of mask mandates may exacerbate existing disparities and contribute to societal tension.

    **4. Ethical Considerations:**

    Mandating universal mask use raises ethical concerns regarding personal liberties and autonomy. Individuals should retain the right to make informed decisions about their health without undue government intervention. Mandates that infringe upon personal freedoms without clear evidence of benefit risk undermining trust in governmental authority and eroding social cohesion and trust in the government.

    The imposition of blanket mandates without due consideration of their limitations and potential drawbacks raises significant ethical and practical concerns. Alternative strategies, such as mask recommendations and targeted interventions, should be explored to strike a balance between public health imperatives and individual rights.

    The impact of mandating universal mask use stretches beyond mere inconvenience—it delves deep into our fundamental rights and the very essence of our humanity.

    Imagine a world where children, innocent and impressionable, are born into a reality where faces are hidden behind layers of fabric. For these little ones, learning the subtleties of social interaction becomes a daunting challenge. Their tiny minds, eager to absorb the world around them, are met with a barrier—literal and metaphorical—hindering their ability to connect, communicate, and comprehend.

    Now the tender age of four, these children struggle, stifled by masks that obscure smiles, muffle laughter, and dampen the warmth of human connection. The very fabric of their social development is frayed, as they grapple with the frustration of deciphering emotions through a veil of uncertainty.

    Concerns about long-term adverse effects of wearing masks and being surrounded by individuals in masks and its impact on children’s development warrant careful consideration.

    CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT

    Long-term mask-wearing can hinder language development, particularly among young children who rely heavily on visual cues for language acquisition. 

    • Masks obscure facial expressions and mouth movements, making it challenging for children to learn and understand speech. This impediment to clear communication may have lasting effects on language development and interpersonal skills.
    • Social Cues and Interaction: Masks obscure facial expressions, making it difficult to interpret social cues and emotions during interactions. This can lead to misunderstandings, miscommunication, and decreased social connection.
      • Prolonged exposure to masked individuals may result in diminished social skills and increased feelings of isolation, particularly among children and adolescents who are still developing social competencies.4

    But the impact doesn’t stop there. For every child forced to navigate a world where facial expressions are shrouded, a parent is agonizing over the implications. Will their child’s speech development suffer? Will they grow up lacking the essential skills to navigate the complexities of human interaction? The weight of these questions hangs heavy, as families grapple with the unforeseen consequences of mandated mask-wearing.

    And let’s not forget the toll on our collective psyche. Beyond the physical discomfort and respiratory hazards lies a deeper, more insidious threat—the erosion of trust, both in our institutions and in each other. Mandates imposed without due consideration for individual liberties sow seeds of discontent, breeding resentment and suspicion where trust once flourished.

    At its core, the debate over mask mandates transcends mere policy—it’s a battle for our autonomy, our freedom to make choices that shape our lives. We must tread carefully, mindful of the ethical implications that accompany such sweeping measures.

    For in our quest to safeguard public health, we must not sacrifice the very principles upon which our society is built—freedom, autonomy, and the unyielding belief in the inherent dignity of every individual.

  • SUPPORT HOMESCHOOL MOTHER’S FIGHT AGAINST CPS UNWARRANTED SEPARATION & WRONGFUL ACCUSATIONS

    Kristen, a dedicated homeschooling mother from Idaho, faced a nightmare when her sick child was repeatedly turned away from the ER. Desperate for proper treatment, she fought for his health, only to be met with accusations of neglect and criminal charges. After a grueling 16 months, her son came home. Finally, after a long legal battle, she cleared her name but justice remains elusive.
    Now, Kristine is taking her fight to the Supreme Court, standing up against unjust separations and wrongful accusations. She calls on families who have suffered similar injustices to join her cause. But she can’t do it alone. Kristen needs your support. Your donations will help fund her legal battle and protect families from future harm. Join her in seeking accountability and justice. Stand with Kristine to ensure no parent faces the nightmare she endured.

    Financial Support Needed for Legal Fund

    DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND: Parents Objective With Essential Rights

    VENMO @ParentsObjectiveEssentialRight P.O.W.E.R. was born out of the need to help end Medical Kidnap. Defined as a wrongful removal of a child and/or impaired adult from officials.

    https://account.venmo.com/u/ParentsObjectiveEssentialRight

  • Support Access to Vitamins and Supplements in Idaho HO499

     CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR AND ASK THE TO HEAR AND APPROVE H0499 –  The purpose of this legislation is to ensure the Citizens of Idaho and health practitioners retain access to vitamins and supplements under current regulations. Ask the Committee to Hear this bill and APPROVE IT.

    TESTIFY VIRTUALLY
    HB499  it will be heard in the Health and Welfare House Committee 
    TESTIFY IN THE COMMITTEE  IN PERSON – 9 a.m. Room EW20

    TELL LEGISLATORS TO SUPPORT HO499

    In an era where federal agencies like the FDA are under pressure from pharmaceutical companies to restrict access to supplements and alternative forms of treatment, Idaho must maintain its stance as one of the freest states for individuals seeking holistic and natural approaches to healthcare.

    Many individuals rely on vitamins, minerals, and supplements to manage chronic diseases and illnesses effectively. However, there is a growing concern that federal regulations may limit access to these vital resources, potentially tying the hands of holistic practitioners and depriving citizens of options that have proven beneficial for their health.

    We have seen other countries and even the FDA taking steps to restrict or eliminate certain supplements, driven by profit-driven agendas rather than considerations for public health. It is crucial that Idaho stands firm against such efforts and ensures that its citizens have the freedom to choose the healthcare options that work best for them.

    By passing this bill, Idaho can safeguard the rights of its citizens to access vitamins and supplements under current regulations, preserving their ability to pursue alternative forms of treatment and maintain their health and wellness.

    SEND AN EMAIL TO:
    JVanderWoude@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov, IRubel@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, MErickson@house.idaho.gov, MBlanksma@house.idaho.gov, MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, BMitchell@house.idaho.gov, CDixon@house.idaho.gov, JGallagher@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, JRedman@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov

  • Oppose Senate Bill 1245 and Hold Pesticide Manufacturers Accountable

    This bill aims to provide sweeping legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers. This bill, if passed, would shield pesticide manufacturers from legal accountability for any harm caused by their products, even in cases where individuals can prove direct harm from pesticide exposure. We firmly believe that this bill undermines public health.

    THIS BILL WAS DEFEATED BY A FULL SENATE VOTE 15-19-1

    An almost identical bill H653 is currently being sponsored by Representative Blanksma Health Freedom Idaho strongly opposes this bill.

    TELL LEGISLATORS TO OPPOSE 1245

    TAKE ACTION!

    SEND EMAILS TO ALL THE SENATORS

    Then the bill will be heard in the HOUSE BUSINESS COMMITTEE

    Do you have more to say on this bill?
    Send a personal email to the committee members:

    JHoltzclaw@house.idaho.gov,MBundy@house.idaho.gov, MKingsley@house.idaho.gov, TWisniewski@house.idaho.gov, JWeber@house.idaho.gov, LMcCann@house.idaho.gov, RCheatum@house.idaho.gov, DHawkins@house.idaho.gov, DHealey@house.idaho.gov, SMiller@house.idaho.gov, EPrice@house.idaho.gov, JoshWheeler@house.idaho.gov, NRoberts@house.idaho.gov, mwilson@house.idaho.gov, SChew@house.idaho.gov

    BAYER IS IN THE WRONG AND THEY ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE IMMUNITY

    Granting immunity to large corporations through legislation is a betrayal of justice. When profit is prioritized over human life, accountability and informed consent is abandoned. Let’s demand that companies prioritize safety over dollars and uphold the sanctity of every individual’s well-being.

    Miste Karlfeldt, Health Freedom Idaho

    Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, has faced numerous lawsuits related to its product Roundup, which contains the herbicide glyphosate. In June 2020, Bayer agreed to a settlement of $10.9 billion to resolve about 125,000 lawsuits related to Roundup23. The settlement was intended to resolve approximately 75% of the claims made against the company, with individual plaintiffs estimated to receive between $5,000 to $250,000, depending on their circumstances and the strength of their cases.

    The bill would eliminate the ability for Idaho farmers, farmworkers, landscapers, neighbors, or others to participate in these suits. Instead, Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and individuals would be responsible for covering the costs associated with these damages. Local research in Idaho has shown elevated levels of pesticides in pregnant women who live close to agricultural fields.

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4. –Read More Here

    Communities with larger populations, such as Caldwell and Nampa, are also exposed to cancer-causing chemicals. A study conducted in Idaho revealed an increased occurrence of cancer linked to pesticide exposure. Consequently, the threat extends beyond rural areas to impact urban residents, where neighborhoods often border agricultural fields. Recent reports highlight that individuals living in Nampa and Caldwell are exposed to these chemicals simply by residing near these fields.

    Testimony from Senator Brian Lenny

    Idaho’s has a bill on deck that basically throws a giant, indestructible shield around Big Pharma, (in this case, Bayer) RE: their cash cow, glyphosate in Roundup. Are you kidding me?! Where’s the accountability? Where’s the protection for the little guy… the everyday person who trusts these products are safe? Are we trading crops for cancer? Slamming the door on this one isn’t just a no; it’s a HELL NO. Corporate immunity on this level isn’t just over the top; it’s a leap into a realm where consumer safety takes a backseat to profit. And that’s a ride I’m not willing to take.

    Senator Brian Lenny

    Key Concerns:

    1. Lack of Accountability for Harmful Products: SB 1245 essentially grants blanket immunity to pesticide manufacturers, regardless of the harmful effects their products may have on human health. This undermines the principle of corporate responsibility and leaves affected individuals without recourse for seeking justice.
    2. Health Risks Associated with Pesticide Exposure: Numerous studies have linked exposure to certain pesticides with serious health ailments, including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, and neurological disorders. By shielding manufacturers from legal consequences, SB 1245 disregards these well-established health risks and prioritizes corporate interests over public health.
    3. International Discrepancies in Pesticide Regulation: While many countries have banned certain pesticides due to their harmful effects, the United States continues to approve their use. SB 1245 further exacerbates this discrepancy by preventing affected individuals from seeking legal redress, thereby perpetuating a cycle of harm.
    4. Financial Implications: The bill shifts the burden of covering damages associated with pesticide exposure onto Idaho taxpayers, insurance companies, and affected individuals. This not only undermines accountability but also imposes additional financial strain on already vulnerable populations.
    5. Environmental Impact: Pesticides not only pose risks to human health but also contaminate groundwater and harm wildlife. The lack of accountability for pesticide manufacturers perpetuated by SB 1245 exacerbates environmental degradation and threatens the long-term sustainability of Idaho’s ecosystems.

    CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATOR TO TELL THEM TO OPPOSE 1245 IMMUNITY FOR CHEMICAL COMPANIES

    In conclusion, Health Freedom Idaho urges the Idaho Legislature to reject Senate Bill 1245. By opposing this bill, legislators can uphold the principles of public health, corporate accountability, and environmental protection. It is imperative that Idahoans retain the ability to seek legal recourse for damages caused by pesticide exposure and that pesticide manufacturers are held accountable for their actions. We stand firm in our commitment to promoting health freedom including freedom from toxins for the health and well-being of all Idaho residents.

    MORE TO READ: https://hfi.designbyparrish.com/gut-wrenching-dangers-of-glyphosate/

    RESOURCES ON PESTICIDE HARM

    The studies found a correlation between agricultural pesticides and cancer in Western states, including Idaho23. The specific pesticides and their effects may vary, as one study highlighted a strong connection between the fumigant pesticide metam sodium and total cancer rate4.

    https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2022/062122-chemicals-cancer

    https://idahocapitalsun.com/2022/07/08/university-of-idaho-researchers-find-correlation-between-pesticides-and-cancer/

    Research conducted by Boise State University, as reported in various sources. The study found that pregnant women living near agricultural fields in southern Idaho had significantly increased concentrations of the pesticide glyphosate in their urine, especially during the spraying season. The research team collected 453 urine samples biweekly from 40 pregnant women for this study24.

    Several countries have banned or restricted the use of glyphosate due to health concerns. Some of these countries include:

    1. Austria: The Austrian parliament voted unanimously on a partial ban of glyphosate, prohibiting its use on “sensitive” areas and for private use13.
    2. Belgium: Banned the individual use of glyphosate3.
    3. Germany: Has banned glyphosate in public spaces and plans a total ban by 202424.
    4. France, the Netherlands, and Belgium: Glyphosate is banned for household use2.
    5. Mexico: The Supreme Court denied appeals from major agrichemical corporations, affirming the country’s glyphosate ban14.
    6. Vietnam: Is the only country in Asia to have fully banned the use of glyphosate15.

    These bans and restrictions are often due to concerns about the potential link between glyphosate and health issues, including cancer and environmental impact

  • Idaho Cloud Seeding on Trial

    Part 1: Liability Release Analysis

    Why were cloud seeding operators given special liability protections in 2021?  

    HB 266 states, “The act of cloud seeding pursuant to a project funded in whole or in part by the state of Idaho or authorized by the state water resource board shall not be the basis of any claim of liability, including but not limited to trespass or public or private nuisance, and shall not require any state or local permits.”  

    Public concerns 

    What good is a program that requires liability protections? Where there is risk, there must be liability. Many Idahoans were alarmed by this language and wondered why citizens and private property rights were potentially put in harm’s way for an experimental program. 

    Cloud seeding is performed by either ground generators or aerial application. Both methods do not allow Idahoans to opt-out. Citizens began to wonder why cloud seeding operators asked for liability exemptions. 

    Risk of accident

    According to a 2023 Idaho Aviation accident Score Card (IAASC) report, “Aircraft accidents increased from 24 in 2020 to 38 in 2021 – a 35% jump” Did Idaho Power, Idaho Water Resources, and cloud seeding stakeholders acknowledge aviation risk and ask for liability exemptions?  

    Risk of environmental impacts

    “A 2016 study published by the National Library of Medicine found “cloud seeding may moderately affect biota living in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems if cloud seeding is repeatedly applied in a specific area and large amounts of seeding materials accumulate in the environment.” The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) must develop and test the accumulation levels of all chemical agents used in cloud seeding. This includes silver iodide and the impacts of liquid propane as well as all trace chemicals (discussed in an upcoming article). HB 266 allows cloud seeding operators to experiment without “state or local permits.” No permits and no liability for cloud seeding operators only increased public skepticism in the safety of the program. 

    Risk of infringement on private property rights

    We will also investigate where cloud seeding generators are located and flight maps of aerial cloud seeding. If your property is located near these generators or within flight paths, ask yourself why cloud seeding operations, “shall not be the basis of any claim of liability, including but not limited to trespass or public or private nuisance.” 

    We will explore other reasons (from flooding to chemical use) Idahoans are asking questions and demanding accountability in this experimental cloud seeding program. This is part one of a four-part series. 

    SIGN THE PETITION

    Unveiling the Chemicals: Transparency Concerns in Idaho’s Cloud Seeding Program
    Idaho Cloud Seeding Raises Flood Concerns

    What can you do?

    1. Call or write your representative. Several representatives expressed support of our bill and, encouragingly,  it was bipartisan support. 
    2. Sign the petition. If you are concerned with cloud seeding operators receiving special liability protections and would like to see responsible testing take place.

  • tes

    [gh_form id=”2″]

  • Embracing Freedom in the Face of Mask Mandates

    2023, just before another election year, rumors are flying that mask mandates will be implemented in the near future. This means that parents will be forced again to submit religious exemptions to mask mandates for children. In these trying times, parents find themselves once more standing up for their cherished rights and liberties, particularly in the context of mask mandates for their children. It’s a rallying cry for freedom, a reminder that parents, not institutions, should have the final say in raising their kids. These new mask mandates are being rolled out again. We want to empower you as an individual and a parent to stand your ground confidently and respectfully.

    https://youtu.be/bwaf8f2NMrQ

    MASK MANDATES AT SCHOOLS

    One mom’s response to masking mandates and submitting a religious exemption was, “Child abuse is against my religion!”

    Her words echo the sentiments of countless parents who firmly hold that subjecting their children to masks is akin to causing harm. It’s not just about physical well-being; it’s about the mental and emotional toll that masks can exact on our children. Depriving them of the simple joy of seeing smiles and freely breathing can stifle their growth and happiness.

    Do we know that masks are harmful to the health and well-being of our children?

    The research says yes.

    Do they create fear?

    Yes. 

    Looking for the research? There is a plethora found in this drive.

    At the core of this issue is the belief that parents are answerable to a higher power—God—for the way they nurture their children. The facts are clear: the risks posed to children by the pandemic are relatively low. So, why should parents be coerced into accepting mask mandates they feel are unnecessary and even harmful to their little ones?

    But it’s essential to remember that these concerns are rooted in sincere convictions. Parents who assert religious objections to mask mandates genuinely believe these mandates are detrimental to their children’s health and well-being. They see masks as instruments of fear and tools to enforce what they perceive as “unlawful and unjust rules.” In our eyes, it’s not just about protecting our kids; it’s about preserving the inalienable right to parent as we believe God intended.

    This is a matter of personal conscience. A firmly held moral belief that your children are a gift from God and that he grants you wisdom and authority to raise them as he directs your heart.

    Religious Exemption for Mask To wear a mask on my face goes against God and my religious beliefs.

    As a Christian, I view the mask as an affront to what I know to be true in the Word of God.

    We know that wearing a mask is part of a satanic ritual, a humiliation ritual, which the God of the Bible says we are to abstain from engaging in rituals. Eph 5:11 “..Take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.”

    Gen 1:27, Gen 9:26, and Col 3:10 says that I am made in the image and likeness of God. As Job 33:4 states perfectly, “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” I will not hide the image of God nor hinder the breath of life which is my very connection to my creator.

    The command from God to “fear not” is written hundreds of times in the Bible. Our generous Abba, Father has given us a reminder for every day of the year to “fear not” because He wants us to look to Him, not the world, for our protection and provision.

    2 Timothy 1:7 “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” From this scripture, we see that a sound mind cannot exist with the spirit of fear. In fact, the spirit of fear makes us slaves according to Romans 8:15 “So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.”

    The good news is in 1 John 4:18 “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.” We know that God is love so there is no fear in God which leads to the understanding that the spirit of fear will separate me from God and His perfect love. Not trusting in God is an abomination to God.

    Heb 11:6 “And without faith, it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” 1 Cor 2:5 “That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. I have faith that I am made perfectly by my creator with a perfectly designed immune system as God saw that His creation was good in Gen 1:3. Romans 1:17 says that the righteous live by faith and Mark 10:52 says that we can experience healing through faith. Therefore, my faith is in the one true creator God not the shifting direction of Dr Fauci and is 1 mask, 2 mask, goggles, distancing, and gloves. My religious liberty is my birthright and is supported by the Constitution.

    printable-mask-religious-exemptionDownload