Blog

Montana Senate Approves Bill To Shift Marijuana Revenue From Conservation Programs To Police And Addiction Treatment

The Montana Senate on Thursday advanced a measure to change what programs receive more than $60 million in funding from recreational marijuana tax revenue.

Senate Majority Leader Tom McGillvray, R-Billings, is carrying Senate Bill 307 to shift marijuana tax revenue away from Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks programs, and bolster marijuana prevention and enforcement operations.

McGillvray framed the bill as a “simple” policy choice, and asked legislators whether they care more about children and those impacted by marijuana, or wildlife habitat.

“I would submit to you that the deer, the elk, the ducks, the geese are all doing pretty good in Montana,” McGillvray said, adding that FWP has “buckets” of money they could spend.

“I’m asking [us] to prioritize the babies, the moms, the teenagers, the children, the adults that are addicted to this and need a way out,” he said.

But opponents said that the funding was allocated for FWP programs for a reason, and that if the Legislature wants to address prevention efforts, they should tackle that separately.

Sen. Sara Novak, D-Anaconda, served on the Business and Labor Committee during the 2021 session, when recreational marijuana was legalized with support from conservation groups counting on some of the revenue.

“We worked very hard on a big piece of legislation that put all the guiderails around the legalization of marijuana, and it included the allocation of revenue sources,” Novak said. “I do wholeheartedly think we need to take a hard look at prevention, education, treatment, the crime that goes along with all of that and the whole trickle effect, I just don’t think that this bill is the way to go about doing that.”

Keep reading

Using Psychedelics Is Tied To 25% Lower Likelihood Of ‘Frequent Bad Headaches,’ Study Shows

People who have used so-called “classic psychedelics” such as psilocybin or LSD are less likely to report having frequent bad headaches, a new study concludes.

The results, authors wrote this month in the Journal of Pharmacology, “add to the literature suggesting classic psychedelics as a possible future prophylactic treatment option for primary headache disorders.”

Researchers gathered data from 11,419 records collected from 1999 to 2000 as part of the British Child Development Study 1958, which follows a cohort of people born over the course of a single week in March 1958.

Specifically, they looked at responses to three questions: “Do you often have bad headaches?” “Have you ever tried LSD, also known as acid or trips?” and “Have you ever tried magic mushrooms?”

The team’s analysis showed that “lifetime use of classic psychedelics was associated with 25% lower odds of having frequent bad headaches.”

There are, of course, limitations as to what conclusions can be drawn from the observational nature of the study.

“Although we have proposed a direction of association, we cannot draw any causal inferences about the association between lifetime use of classic psychedelics and frequent bad headaches,” they wrote. “It is possible that the negative association found is a result of people suffering from frequent bad headaches abstaining from the use of classic psychedelics.”

Data from the same survey, for example, showed that low alcohol use was associated with higher likelihood of frequent bad headaches. In that case, authors interpreted the finding by saying it “may be explained by individuals experiencing frequent bad headaches choosing to abstain from alcohol,” noting that alcohol is understood to be a trigger for headaches.

Overall, 16 percent of people in the survey reported frequent bad headaches. Of those, 71 percent were female and 29 percent were male. Lifetime use of classic psychedelics, meanwhile, was reported by 6.5 percent of people with frequent bad headaches and 8.6 percent of those without.

Notably, when the research team divided reports by sex, they noticed a stronger association between psychedelics use and headaches among female respondents.

Keep reading

Democrats’ Favorite Influencer Harry Sisson Accused of Tricking 11 Women—Including an Abuse Survivor—into Sending Explicit Photos via Snapchat

TikTok influencer and defacto Biden spox Harry Sisson is accused of convincing 11 women to send explicit photos via Snapchat by falsely claiming he had no other romantic interests and respected them for more than their bodies.

One accuser is a domestic abuse survivor. Specific accusers, including Carlee Hosch and Hannah, have shared detailed allegations on social media, with Hosch alleging a nine-month manipulation period.

The allegations against Sisson were brought to light by Sarah Fields, a Republican State Delegate and US Army veteran, who compiled and shared evidence of his alleged misconduct.

Fields posted on X that when the women eventually discovered each other, Sisson reportedly “called them all insane and attempted to coerce one of them into telling the public that the photos were ‘fake.’”

The allegations suggest Sisson manipulated these women by claiming he had “no roster” and respected them for more than their bodies, with one accuser being a domestic abuse survivor.

“Harry Sisson convinced 11 different women that ‘he had no roster’ and ‘respected them for more than their bodies’ while persuading them to send explicit photos of themselves through Snapchat, including one from a domestic abuse survivor,” Fields wrote on X.

She continued, “When the women discovered each other one by one, he called them all insane and attempted to coerce one of them into telling the public that the photos were ‘fake.’”

Keep reading

The case against Justice Roberts: Is he owned by the CIA?

By now, we all know that Justice Roberts and Justice Coney-Barrett aren’t exactly batting for the home team.

We’ve been sounding the alarm on the Amy Coney Barrett disaster from day one—even urging President Trump to steer clear. We knew she wasn’t the right pick for a moment this big, and sadly, we were right.

Revolver:

Amy Coney Barrett strikes again—alongside Justice Roberts. However, by now, Roberts’ betrayals have become pretty much predictable, but many had high hopes for Barrett, given her history as a clerk for Justice Scalia, one of the greatest Supreme Court Justices of our time. In fact, she was once hailed as “Scalia’s heir.”

Sadly, that claim couldn’t be further from the truth.

In what many conservatives are calling an outright slap in the face, Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice Roberts dealt a blow to President Trump and the US Constitution. They got political, sided with the progressives, and ruled against Trump in the Trump v. New York case.

Thanks to Roberts and Coney Barrett, Trump was dragged through the lawfare circus in New York City and sentenced by deep state lapdog Judge Merchan.

[…]

As we’ve said before, Roberts is practically a liberal masquerading in a black robe. Many believe there’s something hanging over him, which might explain why he’s always handing the left their key victories. But Amy Coney Barrett was supposed to be different—a powerhouse for the conservative movement, a beacon of hope. Meh. Instead, she’s turned out to be another weak-kneed RINO. It’s like having a “Susan Collins” type on the Supreme Court bench.

A much better choice would’ve been Judge Bridget Shelton Bade. The Revolver piece goes on:

The truth is, here at Revolver, we always had our doubts about Amy Coney Barrett. We never believed she’d truly be the “heir” to Justice Scalia. In fact, we tried to sound the alarm four long years ago. In a piece urging President Trump to nominate Judge Bade over Coney Barrett, we acknowledged Amy’s skills and her conservative roots. But even then, we knew she wasn’t the “shock and awe” powerhouse that this pivotal moment in history needed.

Amy had the credentials, sure, but she lacked the passion our side needed to drive the real change we needed. We saw it four years ago, and now, we’re watching it play out in real time.

Revolver:

Fox News isn’t even including Judge Bridget Shelton Bade’s photograph in their frequent on-air lineups of the supposed frontrunners to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That’s a terrible oversight, because Judge Bade is not only in the running and rapidly amassing support, she is the best choice President Trump could make.

This pick is about more than simply getting one of the many strong options from President Trump’s shortlist on the Court. There is, notably, a powerful current of conservative enthusiasm behind Judge Amy Coney Barrett. As we’ve written here at Revolver, Judge Barrett is an extraordinary woman and exemplary conservative jurist. She would make a great Supreme Court Justice, but she is simply not the ideal nominee for this political moment. Amy Coney Barrett may appear to promise the shock we all know the system deserves, but her nomination risks reframing the precarious Trump reelection effort from a winning battle over law and order, immigration, and left-wing political violence to a messy and poorly timed slog through well-worn battles that would be better and more effectively fought after Trump wins re-election.

Keep reading

Trump’s Ukraine Deals: No Blank Checks, No World War

President Trump vowed to end the war in Ukraine, and true to his word, he has offered President Zelensky two smart, mutually beneficial deals: defense in exchange for access to minerals and defense in exchange for energy cooperation.

Both proposals would have strengthened Ukraine’s position while advancing U.S. strategic interests—yet Zelensky rejected them. It appears he prefers unconditional aid, giving nothing in return.

Meanwhile, Europe seems determined not only to prolong the war indefinitely but also to risk provoking Russia into a broader conflict that could spiral into World War III.

The first major deal President Trump offered to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was a strategic defense-for-minerals agreement that served the interests of both nations.

Under this deal, Ukraine would grant the U.S. access to critical mineral resources—such as rare earth elements—in exchange for increased American defense support.

This arrangement provided Ukraine with much-needed funding and a de facto security guarantee, as the presence of American personnel on the ground to safeguard mineral operations would serve as a deterrent to Russian aggression.

Crucially, the deal accomplished all of this without requiring Ukraine to join NATO, making it more acceptable to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had long opposed NATO expansion.

The presence of Americans on key sites would have raised the stakes for any Russian attack, potentially deterring an invasion due to the risk of direct conflict with U.S. forces.

However, European leaders harshly criticized President Trump for proposing the defense-for-minerals deal, demanding instead that the United States continue its open-ended military support for Europe and financial aid to Ukraine.

Many in Europe labeled Trump a bully and an extremist for attempting to reshape the terms of engagement.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also rejected the offer, preferring unconditional financial aid over a mutually beneficial agreement.

Ironically, while condemning Trump’s proposal—which could have de-escalated tensions and provided a peaceful resolution—European nations have moved in the opposite direction.

They are rearming, expanding their militaries, approving a massive EU-wide military spending loan program, and even considering deploying troops directly to Ukraine, a move that could risk triggering World War III.

All the while, they continue to criticize the United States for stepping back from the war and exploring a diplomatic solution.

Keep reading

Hunter’s Secret Service boondoggle

President Donald Trump just signed an executive order to terminate Secret Service protection for Hunter Biden, 55, and his half-sister, Ashley, 43. It marks the end of an era of bitter irony for U.S. taxpayers and the Secret Service — both of which a shameless presidential son took advantage.

Secret Service protection for former presidents is detailed under the Former Presidents Act (FPA). The Act did not take effect until 1958, benefitting the only two living former presidents at the time — Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman. Dwight D. Eisenhower became the first president to benefit from it immediately upon leaving the Oval Office.

The FPA originally provided for lifetime Secret Service protection for former presidents. But, in 1994, it was amended to provide only ten years protection for those inaugurated after January 1, 1997. Perhaps recognizing we were living in more dangerous times, effective in 2013, the Act returned to the lifelong protection commitment. 

The spouse of a former president is also entitled to lifelong Secret Service protection unless she remarries. Any child of a former president is entitled to protection “until they become 16 years of age.” 

While Hunter and Ashley were still receiving such protection two months after Joe Biden left office, it was due to his executing an executive order before stepping down to extend protection to older children for no more than six additional months. This was something other presidents had done before him.

But here is a bitter irony tied to the Hunter Biden boondoggle. 

Keeping in mind Hunter’s 24/7 security probably involved about 18 agents, necessitating they go wherever he went and that Hunter was making numerous international trips to collect paychecks for virtually no reason other than being the son of the vice president and later president, taxpayers were taking a major hit in financing his Secret Service force. This was true too when Biden was living a life of luxury in Malibu that mandated his security team rent very expensive property nearby.

Meanwhile, as taxpayers were footing Hunter’s tremendous Secret Service costs, he was receiving millions of dollars, it is estimated, which included $3.8 million from CEFC China Energy — an oil and gas company linked to the Chinese Communist Party that ultimately went belly up — and from Burisma Holdings. Hunter had begun working with CEFC when his father was vice president.

It presented the worst possible image for someone in Hunter’s position to open doors for China — a country with national security interests far different from our own. 

After Biden became president, Hunter worked with another Chinese company linked to CEFC that sent $5 million to a joint venture created by the First Son and an associate. Joint ventures became a common feature used by Hunter to launder foreign funding. But, with Secret Service agents in tow, it was as if Hunter were in a room counting his money as they stood guard outside, providing him protection for which he was not even having to pay.

Keep reading

The Climate Scam is Over…

On March 21, 2025, the Science of Climate Change journal published a ground-breaking study using AI (Grok-3) to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Click on the link below for the paper titled: A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis.

This peer-reviewed study and literature review not only reassesses man’s role in the climate change narrative it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate global warming.

Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in both the physical and medical sciences.

After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals.

The use of AI in clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA must adopt AI for analyzing preclinical and clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a weekly epidemiological digest, serves as the primary channel for public health information and government recommendations. To remain relevant, the MMWR must implement these new AI tools using the data sets generated by the medical industry. Likewise, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are now obsolete. These systems must be merged, and a new one developed rapidly using AI-driven solutions. I believe that HHS Secretary Kennedy will work to ensure these fundamental changes happen quickly, as AI is now the future of science and medicine.

Keep reading

North Carolina family can sue over COVID-19 vaccine administered without consent, court rules

A North Carolina mother and her son can sue a public school system and a doctors’ group for allegedly giving the boy a COVID-19 vaccine without consent, the state Supreme Court ruled.

The ruling handed down Friday reverses a lower-court decision that a federal health emergency law prevented Emily Happel and her son Tanner Smith from filing a lawsuit.

Both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals had ruled against the two, who sought litigation after Smith received an unwanted vaccine during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

Smith was vaccinated in August 2021 at age 14 despite his opposition at a testing and vaccination clinic at a Guilford County high school, according to the family’s lawsuit.

Keep reading

Border czar Tom Homan accuses Biden administration of deliberately undermining immigration enforcement

In a fiery interview on “The Stephen A. Smith Show” on March 14, Tom Homan accused the Biden administration of intentionally dismantling effective immigration enforcement policies, leading to a surge in illegal border crossings.

Homan, a veteran of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), argued that President Joe Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas knowingly abandoned strategies that had successfully reduced border crossings during the Obama administration. The discussion, which touched on political motivations and the administration’s handling of the ongoing border crisis, has reignited debates over immigration policy and its broader implications for national security and electoral politics.

Homan, who served as acting ICE director under President Donald Trump, pointed to Biden’s tenure as vice president under Barack Obama as evidence that the current administration understands how to secure the border but has chosen not to.

“Why do I think he did it on purpose? Because Joe Biden was vice president under Barack Obama when he had those record removals. Alejandro Mayorkas was a deputy secretary under Obama when he had those removals,” Homan said.

During the Obama administration, Homan explained, the government implemented measures such as family residential centers, which detained migrant families long enough to ensure they appeared before a judge.

“We held them long enough to see a judge, 90 percent lost a case, 90 percent, so we put them on an airplane, sent them home, and border numbers tanked,” Homan said. He argued that Biden and Mayorkas deliberately reversed these policies, opting instead to release migrants into the U.S. without ensuring they faced legal consequences. (Related: SECURE BORDERS: Trump’s border czar reports historic low in illegal immigrant encounters.)

“So both those men [Biden and Mayorkas] knew how we solved that crisis. When it came back in, as the now secretary and the president, what did they do? The complete opposite. They didn’t defend. They released. They didn’t make them see a judge, and they weren’t removing them,” Homan said.

Keep reading

Judge who blocked Trump deportations took junket to event with anti-Trump speakers, sponsor

Months before he blocked President Donald Trump’s deportations of illegal alien gang members, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg attended a privately-funded legal conference in Idaho that featured sponsors and speakers who have expressed clear anti-Trump sentiments — particularly on immigration — and a theme that echoed the Democrat Party’s 2024 stated mission of saving democracy, according to a judicial ethics report.

Boasberg was one of nine Democrat-appointed judges and three Trump nominated jurists to attend the conference in ritzy Sun Valley, where two of the four sessions were titled “Role of Judges in a Democracy” and the “State of Democracy,” the report shows.

Called a “Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report,” the document discloses that Boasberg was in attendance, but offers no details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel, or what the remuneration was. 

Overseen by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the ethical rules governing federal judges require that a private entity who “issues an invitation to a federal judge to attend an educational program as a speaker, panelist, or attendee and offers to pay for or reimburse that judge, in excess of $480, must disclose financial and programmatic information.” The rules do not require a specific accounting for each judge, or even how much was paid to judges at all.

You can view that disclosure here, which is also linked to the official website of the D.C. District Court.

BoasbergDisclosureReport.pdf

Just the News was alerted to the conference and to Boasberg’s attendance by a retired Democrat-appointed judge, who was concerned the July 2024 conference’s focus on judges’ role in a democracy was too close to a political party’s theme for comfort. He declined to be named.

It is possible that his “payment” was merely reimbursement for expenses, but Boasberg did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News.

Keep reading