Cattle Group Addresses mRNA Concerns; Concludes MCOOL for Beef Is Needed ASAP

  R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America“Fighting for the Independent U.S. Cattle Producer”For Immediate ReleaseBy: R-CALF USA Field Director Karina JonesContact: R-CALF USA CEO Bill BullardPhone: 406-252-2516; r-calfusa@r-calfusa.comView and share this news release on Facebook here or view the web version here.Cattle Group Addresses mRNA Concerns; Concludes MCOOL for Beef Is Needed ASAPBILLINGS, Mont., April 20, 2023 – On Monday, following a meeting he had with medical doctors and a molecular biologist, R-CALF USA Animal Health Committee Chair, Max Thornsberry, DVM, briefed the R-CALF USA board on the status of mRNA injections in the global protein supply chain. Thornsberry reported that some researchers have found that mRNA and its coded virus is likely passed from an injected human to a noninjected human, and to humans who have consumed dairy products or meat from an mRNA-injected animal. He said that because the research on mRNA is still in its infancy, no one really knows the full impact it has on either humans or animals, particularly its long-term impact. He said this itself warrants more extensive mRNA research focused on safety, heightened public vigilance, and greater transparency. Thornsberry pointed out that the United States has not approved mRNA injections in cattle, but they are in use on a limited basis in swine. He said the dilemma for beef is that the U.S. is importing more and more beef from many different countries, some of which either already are or plan to begin using mRNA in cattle for such cattle diseases as foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease.   “This points to the urgent need for MCOOL (mandatory country of origin labeling),” he said adding, “Consumers deserve the right to choose whether to consume beef from a country where mRNA injections are being given to cattle, and the only way they can have that choice is if Congress passes MCOOL for beef.”     Due to the information presented by Thornsberry, the R-CALF USA board passed a motion to bring this issue before the R-CALF USA membership at its next annual meeting to determine policy direction for the organization.Until that policy is fully developed, R-CALF USA strongly reinforces the need for mandatory country of origin labeling (the American Beef Labeling Act, S. 52) on beef immediately. R-CALF USA President Brett Kenzy said, “Without an MCOOL label on our beef, the American consumer has no way of knowing if the beef they are buying is coming from a country using this debatable mRNA technology in their cattle health management.”Kenzy pointed out that as new information is becoming public about the use of the controversial mRNA vaccine technology in cattle health protocols in foreign countries, at the same time beef imports have been increasing while the United States cattle inventory continues to contract, surpassing 60-year inventory lows. He said the result is that our domestic beef demand is fast becoming more dependent on the global beef supply chain, which makes enactment of MCOOL all the more urgent.# # #Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) is the largest producer-only lobbying and trade association representing U.S. cattle producers. It is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. Visit or call (406) 252-2516 for more information.R-CALF USA | PO Box 30715, Billings, MT 59107 |  Phone 406-252-2516 | Fax 406-252-3176       
R-CALF USAPO Box 30715Billings, MT 59107

OK Supreme Court’s Roe-like Ruling

 By John Michener


On 21 March 2023 the Supreme Court of the State Of Oklahoma (the Court) held in a 5-4 decision that Oklahoma’s most recent abortion law (63 O.S. § 1-731.4, passed as SB 612) “is void and unenforceable.”  The criminality of abortion in Oklahoma is now governed primarily by two older statutes which had been superseded by the Court-voided one.

The first statute is 21 O.S. § 21-861, which reads:  “Every person who administers to any woman, or who prescribes for any woman, or advises or procures any woman to take any medicine, drug or substance, or uses or employs any instrument, or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall be guilty of a felony….”

The second statute is 63 O.S. § 63-1-733, which reads:  “No woman shall perform or induce an abortion upon herself, except under the supervision of a duly licensed physician.”

These two statutes together sound like they would criminalize all elective abortions, and they would if enforced and adjudicated by normal citizens in the ways they were obviously intended when originally written and enacted.  Unfortunately, the Court also took the opportunity of this opinion to codify new woke interpretations of the Oklahoma Constitution and statutes, intending to dramatically broaden and permit murder by abortion.

First, in a very twisted trick of interpretation, the Court has supposedly found a right to abortion in Article 2 Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution which provides:  “All persons have the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”

Note this crazy analysis of the Court:  “We hold that the Oklahoma Constitution [Article 2 Section 2] creates an inherent right of a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.”  Justice Combs later explains that the constitutional right to life and liberty “would include a right to privacy and personal autonomy.”  And of course they view abortion as a private and personal matter.

Furthermore, they have also reinterpreted the phrase “preserve her life” to no longer mean save her life in a medical emergency.  Note the strained and contrived way in which they arbitrarily define preserve her life:  “We would define this inherent right to mean:  a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if at any point in the pregnancy, the woman’s physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.  Absolute certainty is not required….”

With this opinion the Court has foretold to the world how they will adjudicate abortion cases in Oklahoma.  Remember the doctor’s note in high school that was a free pass for tardiness and absence?  A women now needs no more than a doctor’s note that she is acting to “preserve her life” to literally get away with murder.  The court will throw out any case against her or her doctor.  This opinion was clearly designed to open the bloody floodgates in Oklahoma. 

Back Row: Justices Dustin P. Rowe, Douglas L. Combs, Noma Gurich, and Dana Kuehn Front Row: Justices James R. Winchester, M. John Kane IV, Richard Darby, Yvonne Kauger, and James E. Edmondson

Chief Justice Kane in his well-written dissent said that “the majority engages in legal contortions…by fashioning Oklahoma Constitutional precepts of abortion law that simply do not exist.  There is no expressed or implied right to abortion enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution.  In interpreting our Constitution, this Court must guard against the innate human temptation to confuse what is provided in the Oklahoma Constitution with what one wishes were provided.”

At this juncture it might be pointless to petition for further legislation, no matter how principled.  Justices Kauger, Winchester, Edmondson, Combs, and Gurich have acted outrageously and will continue to do so.  This merry-go-round will not stop until these tyrannical bullies are thrown off their playground thrones.  We should ask Governor Stitt, Attorney General Drummond, and our State Representatives to put the Court in its place, to impeach these rogue judges.

Geo-Fencing Coming Soon?

By Kenny Bob Tapp

If you’ve been on the outskirts of Boise City, Oklahoma recently you may have seen a white camper trailer with cameras and other devices attached. The trailer had the Oklahoma Highway Patrol logo on the side. I saw it on Highway 56 for a couple days and then saw it on South Highway 287.
The camper trailer is part of a test program by ODOT to detect how many trucks travel on our highways to see if perhaps a geo-fence could be placed around Boise City. Supposedly if a geo-fence were in place it could detect semi load weights and allow some freight traffic the luxury to avoid turning off to the Port of Entry for inspection.

What is Geo-Fencing?


“A geofence is a virtual fence or perimeter around a physical location. Like a real fence, a geofence creates a separation between that location and the area around it. Unlike a real fence, it can also detect movement inside the virtual boundary.

It can be any size or shape, even a straight line between two points.

Geofences are created using mapping software, which allow the user to draw the geofence over the desired geographic area. It is made up of a collection of coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) or in the case of a circular geofence one point that forms the center.

Geofence use cases

When integrated with fleet management and telematics solutions, geofences can be used to alert you via text message in near real time if a vehicle or valuable piece of equipment with a GPS tracker attached is removed from your yard without your authorization. Or it could notify you if a drone enters a restricted airspace.”

While geo-fencing may serve as a convenience for freight companies, livestock haulers, etc., we must ask at what price? Though this technology may have its conveniences it could eventually be used for tracking and movement of everyone. We are definitely moving further into the time of Big Brother, A Brave New World.

Your inalienable rights enshrined in the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that protect your right to privacy and to be secure in your persons and papers are basically a thing of the past. May we be ever vigilant.

Oklahoma’s Pro-Abortion Bill (SB 834)

The Oklahoma Senate Health and Human Services Committee passed SB 834 by (r)epublican, Senator Julie Daniels last week:

SB 834 protects abortion in four ways:

Sen. Julie Daniels

  1. 1. Place exceptions into Oklahoma’s abortion law that would allow for the murder of children conceived in rape and incest.
  1. 2. Legalize self-managed abortion in Oklahoma by repealing Oklahoma Statute §63-1-73.
  2. 3. Protect abortifacient drugs.
  3. 4. Protect any “act related to in vitro fertilization,” which includes the act of discarding “low-grade embryos.”

With the Repeal of Roe V Wade last summer one would assume Oklahoma legislators would keep their pledge and abolish abortion. On the contrary, the legislature has refused to take up SB 402 by Senator Warren Hamilton which would do just that, criminalize abortion as murder. Instead the State Senate is poised to pass SB 834 which fully reinstates surgical abortions that butcher children to death with forceps and scalpels.

Please email the Oklahoma State Senators using the Senate email addresses below with your thoughts:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Died Suddenly Premier

Please click on the link to watch the Died Suddenly Premiere by the Stew Peters Network:

“Why do we never believe them? For centuries, the global elite have broadcast their intentions to depopulate the world – even to the point of carving them into stone. And yet… we never seem to believe them.

The Stew Peters Network is proud to present DIED SUDDENLY, from the award winning filmmakers, Matthew Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer.
They are the minds behind WATCH THE WATER and THESE LITTLE ONES, and now have a damning presentation on the truth about the greatest ongoing mass genocide in human history.” – Stew Peters Network

Horowitz: Oklahoma Gov. Stitt touts Agenda 2030 green energy as ‘where investments are headed’


September 15, 2022

If Democrats are akin to voracious wolves seeking to turn the American sheep into a carcass, the Republicans are the vultures seeking to cash in by feasting on that carcass rather than calling in the lions to battle the wolves and protect the American sheep. Nowhere is this more evident than with Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signing on to the green energy “Agenda 2030” plan to replace cars with electric vehicles in supposedly conservative Oklahoma. Except, unlike most other Republicans, he should get points for honesty, providing us with a full understanding of why Republicans will never fight for us on an issue that matters. The reason? The money and “investments” are always on the side of tyranny. 

It should now be abundantly obvious to any thinking person that the weather tyranny and green energy agenda aren’t just cute or even annoying; they will quite literally kill millions of people with starvation and lack of access to vital goods and services. They are coming for our food and fuel the same way they came for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine during the pandemic. Thus, any promotion of green energy, with its officious regime of government mandates and subsidies, will necessarily ease the death of energy that actually works. So we are all on the same page as conservatives that green energy must be shunned, right?

Read more at:

In Light of Corruption Sherwood Calls Stitt to Step Down From Governor

June 17, 2022

For Immediate release from the Sherwood For Governor Campaign:


In light of the recent alleged illegal actions of Governor Stitts Campaign, I, Dr. Mark Sherwood, 2022 Republican Gubernatorial Candidate, am calling on Kevin Stitt to consider stepping down from the gubernatorial race immediately in order to save our State from being led by Joy Hofmeister, the Democrat Candidate.

Oklahomans are aware of the pay-to-play investigation regarding the Oklahoma Tourism Department and Stitt’s friends, Swadley’s BBQ.

Additionally, audits have exposed 5.4 million dollars spent on goods that were never received. Further, under the direction of Kevin Stitt, another internal State auditor was fired after looking into concerns about a conflict of interest.

But now, the biggest Stitt debacle of all could have felony-level ramifications. Stitt just launched what may be an illegal campaign ad on behalf of John O’Conner, a candidate for State Attorney General and Stitt’s personal pal.–

Oklahoma lawmakers have written, “The intent is clear: with his hand-picked Attorney General lagging in the polls, Governor Stitt is spending his campaign funds to help.”

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater has stated, “ I consider this a serious matter,…I will respect the lawmakers’ request and investigate…” If the allegations are true, Stitt could be found guilty of a felony punishable by a massive fine and/or imprisonment of up to a year.

Title 21 Oklahoma Statutes Section-21-187-1/E.: “Any person who knowingly and willfully violates any provision of this section where the aggregate amount contributed exceeds the contribution limitation specified in subsection A of this section by Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or more, upon conviction, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of up to four times the amount exceeding the contribution limitation or by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for up to one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

If Stitt is elected as the Republican nominee, there is a possibility that he could be criminally charged and disqualified as a candidate. This will leave us forced to elect a Democrat as governor of Oklahoma, who will most assuredly be a puppet for the globalists and communists running D.C.

At a time when our State is under threats from enemies without and within, the republican primary on June 28 could decide the fate of Oklahoma. We need a governor who will secure Oklahoma’s freedom as a sovereign State and push against the tyrants in D.C.! If we nominate Kevin Stitt, we could be setting the stage for an unopposed Democratic victory in the general election. Do we want the Party of Clinton, Obama, and Biden to govern in Oklahoma?

Based on this unscrupulous pattern of behavior, I believe Kevin Stitt should step aside as a candidate for the 2022 Gubernatorial election in order to save Oklahoma from falling into the hands of Democrats.

Together I truly believe we can make Oklahoma the freest State in the Union.

Dr. Mark Sherwood

 Governor Misunderstands His Job

By John Michener



Governor Kevin Stitt was recently invited to defend Oklahoma abortion law on Fox NewsSunday.  He was presented with a great opportunity to explain to a massive audience across the States that abortion is murder, violates God’s law, violates our constitutions, and must be completely abolished.  Instead he attempted to defend his limited abortion regulations by citing the desires of the people of Oklahoma whom he represents.  The conversation then devolved into an argument over how many people support or oppose abortion in Oklahoma. 

This exchange perfectly illustrates the problem with officials who attempt to govern based on pragmatics rather than principle.  In fact, unless the voters understand the competing worldviews that candidates represent, we are doomed to continue with political leadership that looks foolish on national television and cannot explain right from wrong.

What is the job of an official in a representative republic?  On what basis should officials make decisions and govern?  We want to answer these critical questions in the context of abortion law and the upcoming gubernatorial primary election between Mark Sherwood and Kevin Stitt on 28 June.

First, let us keep in mind the proper purpose of government, which (as revealed in scripture and articulated by our founding fathers) is to defend life, liberty, and property.  Because our founders did not want our rights being abused by magistrates, they based our State republics and Union on the “Rule of Law.”  Therefore, we are ruled by our civil laws, and the officials we elect are supposed to administer those laws on our behalf.  That is why they are called representatives.  Not because they are to blindly do the will of the people, but because they are to represent the interests of the people in civil law.  And what are the people’s interests?  Their lives, liberty, and property.

The founders also took for granted that civil law should be based upon God’s law.  But with the march of time has come the inevitable corruption of our laws and the way they are administered.  The choice is between God’s way or the Humanist way.  Let us compare the two worldviews.

On the one hand, civil law might correlate with God’s law, synonymous with Natural Law, Divine Law, justice, objective standards, universal morals, and the like.  Under this paradigm making decisions about what laws to write and how to administer them would be characterized by doing what is right, regardless of the perceived consequences.  Justification for government action would appeal to the aforementioned higher law of God.

On the other hand, civil law might correlate more with Humanist philosophies, such as social contract theory, social justice, the will of the people, consensus, socialism, etc.  Making decisions about what laws to write and how to administer them would be characterized by appeals to popular opinions recorded via voting and polling.  In this paradigm a representative merely does the will of the vocal majority of people, regardless of what is right and wrong or how it might harm life, liberty, and property.  Citizens end up suffering from a tyranny of the majority.  Government action is characterized by utilitarian and pragmatic arguments, appeals to the will of the people, and sales pitches guaranteeing happiness for the most people, while really being about securing the most contributions and votes for the politician pitching the sale.

If abolishing state-sanctioned murder by abortion is important to you, then we must apply our understanding of these competing worldviews to the governor’s race in Oklahoma.  We have already seen for almost four years that the current governor has not been able to call for or defend any particular abortion-related legislation based on principle.  He could have abolished abortion at any time during his administration, and done so quite easily in the last month since the Supreme Court leak, but all we have seen is lack of vision and unnecessary compromise.  The laws he has signed are unjust, unconstitutional, and contradictory.  They leave gaping loopholes for thousands more murders to continue, and he cannot even defend them on Fox News.

Through the years, Governor Stitt’s comments regarding abortion have been reminiscent of Governor Pontius Pilot of Judea.  Pilate knew Jesus was not deserving of death, yet he shirked his duty to protect an innocent human and attempted to shift responsibility for Jesus’s death, ultimately giving the people what they wanted, even though it was unjust.

Similarly, Governor Stitt has abdicated his duty to protect innocent preborn humans.  Like Governor Pilate, Stitt has allowed the cries of the rabble to prevail, perhaps augmented by “pro-life” lobbyists and political handlers who have convinced him that compromising on abortion will be politically pragmatic and that he can sell it to the voters.  He seems convinced that shutting down a handful of perpetrators and simply “signing every piece of pro-life legislation that hits my desk” is enough to wash his hands of the innocent blood of preborn Oklahomans.

In stark contrast, Mark Sherwood for Oklahoma Governor has explained that abortion is murder and vowed to close loopholes and provide equal protection for our preborn neighbors within thirty days of taking office.  There is a clear choice on 28 June between two competing men, representing two competing worldviews.  We can keep going the Humanist way under Kevin Stitt, leading to more loss of life, liberty, and property, or we can go God’s way with Mark Sherwood.

Mark Sherwood is a man who can explain his principles for decision making and who will proactively defend the right to life, right to liberty, right to property, right to conduct business, right to medical choices, right to parent, etc.  Mark Sherwood understands that being governor is not about doing whatever the people want, but about doing what is right on behalf of the people.  Learn more at