by Guest Writer | Apr 15, 2026 | Corporations, Data Centers
Photo By MEIC
Guest Editorial by former Butte Legislator, Josh Peck.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes. This time, unfortunately, organized labor got it wrong.
Let me say this clearly before anyone twists it. I am pro-union. I have spent years supporting unions, studying labor history, standing with workers, and understanding exactly why unions matter. Unions built the middle class. Unions fought for safety rules, fair pay, decent benefits, health protections, training standards, and dignity on the job. In a place like Butte, that history is not abstract. It is sacred.
That is exactly why this moment feels so wrong.
What we are being told right now is that if we ask questions about data centers, if we ask about water, if we ask about electric rates, if we ask about noise, wildlife, land use, public process, long-term costs, and whether regular Montanans will get stuck holding the bag, then somehow we are anti-worker or anti-union. That is nonsense.
Even Montana press is now reporting that AFL-CIO pressure has reached party messaging around data centers. Daily Montanan’s April 13 debate coverage quoted Russ Cleveland saying he was warned to be careful about talking negatively about data centers because AFL-CIO had asked for that. Montana Standard had already reported in February that labor leadership was urging Montana Democrats to back off negative messaging on the issue. 
That is not solidarity. That is message control.
And the message they want us to swallow is simple: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Montanans have heard that tune before.
Yes, data centers create construction work. Nobody is denying that. Brookings says the standard model delivers short-term construction jobs. A USC workforce analysis says the typical large build runs around two years. But that same research also shows the permanent workforce at highly automated hyperscale facilities is tiny compared with the build phase. Good Jobs First warns that many subsidy deals require very few permanent jobs, and some require none at all, while construction labor can be filled by traveling crews rather than guaranteed local hires. 
So let us stop pretending this is some giant long-term employment engine for Montana communities. A lot of these projects look more like a short burst of work followed by a heavily automated facility with a relatively small permanent staff. 
That does not make the construction jobs fake. It means they are not the whole story.
And the other side of the story is huge.
Montana Free Press has reported that Butte is ground zero in this debate for a reason. We already know these projects can require enormous amounts of electricity. We know water use details have been hard to pin down. We know there is a tradeoff between water cooling and electric demand. We know NorthWestern has signed letters of intent that, by one Montana Free Press accounting, could total 1,400 megawatts by 2030, more than double what its existing customers require on a typical day. We know Earthjustice and other groups are fighting the PSC because key data center information has been kept from public view. 
That alone should be enough to justify a pause.
Not a ban. Not a tantrum. Not an anti-union crusade.
A pause.
A serious, adult, Montana-style pause to ask basic questions.
What will this do to electric rates?
What will this do to water?
What will this do to wildlife and habitat?
What will this do to neighboring homes and neighborhoods?
What will this do to noise levels?
What will this do to local infrastructure?
What guarantees exist that Montana ratepayers will not subsidize private corporate expansion?
What percentage of the labor will actually be local?
What percentage of the permanent jobs will be union?
What public benefits are guaranteed in writing, not just promised in a press conference?
These are not extremist questions. These are the exact kind of questions unions are supposed to ask when something big, risky, and potentially harmful is being pushed through too fast.
Because the union tradition at its best is not “trust the corporation.”
It is not “take the deal and ask later.”
It is not “sit down and shut up because leadership already decided.”
The union tradition at its best is: slow down, get it in writing, protect the worker, protect the public, make sure the job is done right, and make sure regular people are not the ones sacrificed so somebody else can cash out.
That is why this feels like such a slap in the face.
We are not talking about a local machine shop. We are not talking about a small industrial project with known impacts. We are talking about a fast-moving, high-power, high-water, highly secretive industry that across the country has triggered fights over utility rates, freshwater, land use, air quality, and transparency. DOE’s Berkeley Lab says data center electricity demand could rise to as much as 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2028. EESI says large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. WRI says communities are often left with limited information about long-term impacts and benefits. 
If that does not call for caution, what does?
And here is the part that really gets under my skin.
I actually do support data centers in the United States. I support keeping critical digital infrastructure here rather than handing it off to regimes and regions with fewer rules and less accountability. I understand the argument that colder climates can be more efficient. I understand why people see economic potential.
But supporting the concept is not the same thing as giving every project a blank check.
A corporation willing to build wherever cost is lowest is not your friend just because it says “union labor” at the groundbreaking. The same market logic that chases cheap land, cheap power, tax breaks, and light regulation is not magically transformed into labor solidarity because someone wore a hard hat at a press conference. If anything, that is exactly when unions should be most skeptical.
And that is why labor leadership should be standing with communities demanding answers, not attacking people for asking the questions.
Want this done right? Then prove it.
Guarantee local labor in writing.
Guarantee ratepayer protections in writing.
Guarantee water protections in writing.
Guarantee disclosure in writing.
Guarantee environmental review in writing.
Guarantee permanent community benefit in writing.
Do not tell Montanans to take it on faith.
This is Montana. People hunt here. Fish here. Raise kids here. Pay utility bills here. Live next to the land being discussed here. They have every right to know what will be built, what it will consume, what it will sound like, what it will cost, and who really benefits.
That is not anti-union.
That is not anti-worker.
That is not anti-progress.
That is exactly what doing it right looks like.
So no, asking for a pause is not opposing labor. It is honoring the best instincts labor was built on. Measure twice. Cut once. Protect people first. Do not let corporate greed wrap itself in a union banner and call that justice.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes.
This time, labor leadership got it wrong.
And if unions want to be true to the legacy they inherited from places like Butte, then they should stop trying to rush Montanans past their questions and start helping us demand real answers.
The most union thing in the world is not blind loyalty to a project. It is insisting the project be safe, fair, transparent, and worth the cost.
Short-term construction jobs are not a moral blank check for long-term public risk. 
If the deal is so good, it should survive public scrutiny.
Montanans are not saying no. They are saying prove it.
Labor should be helping ask the hard questions, not helping shut them down
Also see WTF406.com previous post on data centers. https://wtf406.com/2025/08/here-we-go-again/
by Guest Writer | Mar 28, 2026 | Money, Politics
Prominent Repubs and Dems Tired of Partisanship, Money Fueling MT Politics
By Bill Lombardi
As factions in Montana Republican and Democratic circles vigorously debate the use of “Dark Money” and spar over outside influences on state races, a new nonprofit has emerged to leverage the seeming rising power of “moderates” who shun party influence and cut legislative deals that anger their partisans.
Beyond Party – Montana First
Called Beyond Party – Montana First, this new nonprofit is helmed by a crew of key Republicans and Democrats who want to temper the partisanship engendered by political parties and ensure that politicians get support to create policy that appears to benefit Montana citizens and not just one political party or another.
“Beyond Party is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting the principles of good government,” the group, which registered with the Montana Secretary of State last October, says on its website.
The group says that “your contribution nurtures Republican and Democratic principles articulated in the Montana constitution by empowering principled candidates, countering the corrosive forces of unrelenting partisanship and unlimited money, and mobilizes citizens to reclaim self-governance at every level.”
Beyond Party President Daniel Kemmis of Missoula told me that members were “motivated” to break from party rule after nine state Senate Republicans (dubbed the “Nasty Nine” by hard-core GOP members) famously teamed up with Senate Democrats last year in the Montana Legislature to “stop really bad legislation, especially about partisan elections for the judiciary.” Currently, candidates don’t declare partisan leanings in judicial races.
“Our feeling has been, that especially those that are in red [GOP] districts, that we’d like to not see them [the nine Republicans] get knocked out,” Kemmis told me. “Most are likely to get primaried. Part of the motivation is to see if there is anything we can do to protect and help these courageous Republicans. And beyond that, we just want to see if there’s anything useful we can do to lower the partisan temperature overall.”
But The Temperature Keeps Rising
The temperature, however, keeps rising in advance of the June 2026 Montana legislative primaries. The feud between more-moderate GOP members, who call themselves Montana Conservative Republicans, and the staunch GOP members who run the party and guide the Montana Freedom Caucus, is boiling over, with social-media darts being lobbed back and forth between the factions.
Montana Freedom Caucus Facebook Post
Far-right Republicans accuse “moderate” Republicans of working with and taking money from Democratic and “progressive” operatives, like Fireweed Campaigns of Helena, while “moderate” GOPers accuse the far-right of being bankrolled by dark money from the Koch-brothers’-funded Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and beholden to “out-of-state interests” and “party bosses.”
Meanwhile, Democrats are, more modestly and discreetly, carping at one another over the same issues – the use of “dark money” that allows donors to be anonymous and is used to elect “moderate” Republicans; the influence of outside groups in dictating who will run for office; and the intervention of a U.S. Senate candidate [Seth Bodnar] who is using former staff and consultants of Democratic U.S. Sen. Jon Tester to run as an independent while criticizing both parties and raising money through the Democratic Party’s ActBlue political action committee account.
Beyond Party wants to eschew the unpleasant work of politics to attract independents
The kind of internecine rugby occurring in both major political parties in Montana is of little use to Beyond Party.
Beyond Party, it seems, wants to eschew the unpleasant work of politics to attract independents and others who want to get things done without getting their hands dirty in partisan shenanigans.
That’s a heavy lift, especially as politicos fiercely compete for attention in a world disorganized by the Texter-In-Chief, President Trump, who has rewired the communication synapses of the masses and patented outrage as a national treasure.
Beyond Party will “actively participate” in elections: “We won’t just endorse; we’ll educate, analyze, and provide clear, unbiased information,” the nonprofit’s website says.
Beyond Party has two purposes: to protect the foundational principles of good government, and to ensure the republic stays strong, relevant, and rooted in the will of the people. Moreover, it will defend citizen self-governance, open government, the democratic process, an independent judiciary, separation of powers, and rule of law.
Who are the bipartisan nonprofit’s founders?
- Former GOP Montana Attorney General and Gov. Marc Racicot, who has publicly criticized President Trump’s sensibilities, judgment and “autocratic compulsions”
- Former Democratic state Sen. Mike Halligan of Missoula, a Vietnam veteran, lawyer, and philanthropic leader who helmed the The Dennis & Phyllis Washington Foundation
- Missoula attorney Mae Nan Ellingson, who served as a Republican – and youngest – delegate to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention and has been a distinguished lawyer in state finance law and champion of civic education and constitutional integrity
- Former state GOP Rep. Joel Krautter, a Billings attorney who unsuccessfully ran for Montana’s eastern congressional seat in 2024 and is known for his bipartisan work for rural communities
- Former state Senate President Bob Brown, a teacher and political historian who also served as Montana Secretary of State and ran unsuccessfully for governor as a Republican in 2004
- Former Kalispell Police Department Chief Frank Garner, who served in the Montana House of Representatives as a Republican and worked across the aisle on public safety, accountability and government integrity
- An eastern Montana farm kid who graduated from Harvard, Kemmis is Beyond Party’s president and is a former Democratic speaker of the Montana House of Representatives, former Missoula mayor, and an author who opines on democracy, leadership and civic life
Beyond Party wants to encourage “moderates” of the Republican and Democratic Parties
Beyond Party does kindly critique political parties on its website: “We acknowledge that political parties have played an important role in American democracy from the outset, and that money has played a similarly important role. But we believe that the role of both parties and money should be kept subordinate to the common good. Because that has not happened, unrestrained partisanship and unlimited money have become the twin challenges of our current political system.”
Other efforts to help elect or reelect so-called “moderate” Republicans in GOP-leaning legislative districts in Montana may have more money. But Beyond Party, Kemmis said, has “slender” funding from “some of our friends. We don’t have any big money at all, and really don’t expect to have any.”
Kemmis said he persuaded the group to be transparent, including in how it’s funded. “I’m not certain that we can stick with that and raise enough money to be effective,” he added.
In a follow-up interview, Kemmis said,“I don’t think parties are going to go away.
“If it were up to me to design things, I wouldn’t have this deeply entrenched two-party system. We would be better off if there were room for more parties,” Kemmis said. “I think the most we can do is when we get into polarized situations we should try to encourage the more-sensible people near the middle of both parties so there is some chance of doing joint problem-solving. To me, that’s the most important thing – to be able to be pragmatic in solving some of the big problems we face. When the two parties are locked in a death grip, it becomes difficult to do this.”
Asked about fundamental principles the group supports, Kemmis said, “The core is democracy itself. But that depends on the ability to deliberate. So you have to be able to work across ideological lines at least to the extent to work things out. Another key is some kind of equity on the financial front so that money doesn’t have more of a role in the process than it should have. There has to be some equity and fairness about where the resources come from. That’s not the case now, and there has to be transparency.”
Is “Beyond Party” the path to end the polarization?
It’s hard to keep up with Montana’s intraparty ping-pong matches. Yet it’s fun, vibrant, and lets voters decide – hopefully out in the open – what kind of candidate and political philosophy that they want. To close the blinds on that sunshine would be a disservice to Montana voters, whose historic libertarian and populist streaks are the best counter to too much of anything.
And, simply, let party members choose which faction they like – or if they don’t like political parties, at all.
by Guest Writer | Feb 15, 2026 | Birthright Citizenship, Democrats, Indigenous People, Native Americans
Many of us remember Tim Sheehy’s racist comments during a fund raiser for his campaign for US Senate last fall. He told his audience about a trip to the Crow Reservation for a cattle branding event when he said, “Great way to bond with all the Indians out there while they’re drunk at 8 a.m.”
Despite repeated requests for an apology to Indian people Sheehy’s response was, “I come from the military, as many of our tribal members do. You know, we make insensitive jokes and probably off-color jokes sometimes,”
Now US Senate candidate, Michael Black Wolf, who is running in the Democratic Primary to challenge Steve Daines, has issued a statement challenging Sheehy’s decision to sign on to an amicus brief before the US Supreme Court challenging birth right citizenship in the United States. It is a major priority for the Trump Administration
Black Wolf is an enrolled member of the Aaniiihnen (Gros Ventre) Tribe. He has been the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer on the Fort Belknap Reservation since January 2014. He works closely with tribal historic preservation offices from the Great Plains States and surrounding regions. He is also running for US Senate in the Democratic Primary.
In his statement on the birthright citizenship challenge, which we are reprinting in full at the end of this post, Black Wolf said this about Sheehy, “He wants to replace our birth right with a litmus test of earning your citizenship through “singular allegiance”. Senator Sheehy is reviving the logic that being ‘too Indian’ makes you “less American”. Sheehy’s gross attempt to turn back the clock to a pre-1924 era is a sick attempt to use the supreme court to erase the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
Here is the full text of his statement:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
MICHAEL BLACK WOLF for U.S. SENATE
Michael Black Wolf for United States Senate
PO Box 210 Hays, MT 59527
Media Contact: info@blackwolfformontana.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Feb. 3, 2026
Montana Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate Michael Black Wolf Issues Statement Regarding Senator Tim Sheehy Amici Curiae Brief Signing
HAYS – Senator Tim Sheehy signed a Supreme Court amici curiae brief with several other United States Senators and Representatives to challenge birthright citizenship. The brief explicitly utilizes Supreme Court legal precedents, specifically Elk v. Wilkens (1884), that were historically used to deny citizenship to Native Americans. This brief is a direct threat to Tribal sovereignty by weaponizing these supreme court decisions.
Sheehy is attempting to validate antiquated mind frames and legal interpretation from the 19th century which said that Indigenous People were “aliens” in our own lands, lands which my ancestors continuously occupied for thousands of years. Sheehy’s gross attempt to turn back the clock to a pre-1924 era is a sick attempt to use the supreme court to erase the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act.
Sheehy’s thinly veiled concealment of his attempt at taking away the long standing 14th Amendment Right of Citizenship millions of Americans rightfully have is revealed under the light of truth. It is a longstanding fact, if you are born in the United States of America, you are a citizen, no question. Sheehy’s brief attempts to frame that only those with “exclusive” loyalty are within U.S. jurisdiction. In fact, all people on this soil are subject to its laws and protections. He wants to replace our birth right with a litmus test of earning your citizenship through “singular allegiance”.
Senator Sheehy is reviving the logic that being “too Indian” makes you “less American”. This is a 19th-century prejudice being used as 21st-century law. All of Montana’s Tribal Nations, all Federally Recognized Tribal Nations and true Americans throughout the Country should be vehemently opposing this outrageous attempt at culling our fellow Americans from their birthright. For all Native Peoples in this country, this brief challenges the very foundation of dual citizenship and Tribal Sovereignty.
Even though there are many non-Natives who enjoy dual citizenship here in the United States and other countries throughout the world, Sheehy would have all of us believe the ridiculous notion that birthright citizenship is a “national security threat”. The brief compares the children of those without status to “invading soldiers”. The scathing irony is this: Native Americans, the original inhabitants of this land, were the first to be labeled “aliens” under this exact legal logic. We are the true First Americans.
Tim Sheehy had the audacity to pose with several members of my own People from the Fort Belknap Indian Community, smiling for a convenient “photo op” all the while hiding his intentions of attempting to take those individuals’ citizenship away with extreme prejudice along with the rest of us First Americans and this nation’s marginalized people.
I strongly encourage tribal leaders and tribal organizations to issue a unified statement condemning the use of anti-Native U.S. Supreme Court precedent as a weaponized attempt to rip away the rightful citizenship of Americans. Senator Sheehy’s brief is a “Constitutional vs. Statutory” trap. It is very dangerous to present a distorted argument that the 1924 Act that enacted the policy for Native American citizenship is a “gift” from Congress. If citizenship is merely a “gift” from Congress (statutory), it can be taken away by a future Congress as a statutory gift rather than a constitutional right from the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was framed to be universal to prevent politicians from picking and choosing who counts as a person. Using historically racist Native American exclusion as a “model” for modern immigration policy suggests that citizenship for any group is temporary and subject to political whim. The 1924 Act merely corrected a historical refusal to acknowledge the constitutional truth that the 14th Amendment gives all born on this soil citizenship.
Montana deserves a Senator who understands that Tribal Sovereignty and American citizenship are not in conflict. Montana deserves a Senator who understands that both are foundational to our amazing states identity. That is why I am running for United States Senate. I will stand and fight for all Americans; not just a small select group of entitled people. In Montana, we don’t believe our rights are a “gift” from Washington—we know they are ours by birth, and we will not let 1880s logic dictate our 2026 future.
Michael Black Wolf
Democratic Candidate
United States Senate
by Guest Writer | Dec 29, 2025 | Club America, Hate Group, Schools, Turning Point USA
Guest Post By Bill LaCroix
On December 9, the Corvallis, MT, school board voted unanimously, in the interest of “vigorous debate,” to approve a “Club America” chapter on their high school campus. “Club America” is part of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the late Charlie Kirk’s explicit, well-funded scheme to insert TPUSA’s brand of White Christian Nationalist (read: hate) speech into every American high school.
But before getting to that, it is worth highlighting some of Kirk’s own words so there can be no mistake about his beliefs and his agenda for the future.
The late Charlie Kirk, in his own words:
- “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term.”
- “If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.’”
- Joe Biden should “be put in prison and/ or given the death penalty for his crimes against America.”
- “You (non-white women) had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
- “Jews have been some of the largest funders of cultural Marxist ideas and supporters of those ideas over the last 30 or 40 years.”
- “MLK was awful. OK? He’s not a good person.”
- “We made a huge mistake when we passed the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s.”
- “Democrats have given hundreds of billions of dollars to illegals and foreign nations, while Gen Z has to pinch pennies just so that they can never own a home, never marry, and work until they die, childless.”
- “Return America to its British roots.”
- “Prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact.”
- “The West is the best because of Christianity. For America to be great, we must remain majority Christian.”
- “I think it’s worth it to have a cost of…some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the Second Amendment.”
Ever since Mr. Kirk’s shooting death on September 10, there has been a concerted state and national effort from the Right to make a martyr of him in the name of (apparently) the White Christian Nationalist cause. It’s reasonable for the average parent, voter and taxpayer, who normally assumes school staff’s first priority is to create a safe learning environment for all students, to now assume that public school staff (and possibly the Montana School Boards Association) have been warned off of any criticism of the late Mr. Kirk now that he’s dead and in the process of being canonized.
When asked about the legality of allowing a volatile, explicitly-hate-centered group to operate within a high school, the Montana School Board Association (MTSBA), which gives legal advice to Montana’s public school districts, opined that, if a high school student wants to start a Ku Klux Klan Club on campus, the school would be defenseless to stop it under Title VIII of the Education for Economic Security Act (the so-called 1984 Equal Access Act).
Well, notwithstanding MTSBA’s revealing post-shooting interpretation of “equal access” or the Corvallis School Board’s take on “vigorous debate,” there are some huge gaps you could drive a “Trump train” through in their deer-in-the-headlights acquiescence to the martyring of such a man or organization that have yet, to my knowledge, to be explored, discussed or explained:
Why, for instance, did the school board need to “approve” or “disapprove” a Club America chapter at all, if the law is so pat that even the KKK can get access to the school’s copy machine? The obvious answer is they didn’t, and their vote was theatre.
Voting unanimously to allow an after-school KKK (or a “Club America”) chapter to operate on campus is not their job, as defined by Title XIII of the 1984 Education for Economic Security Act, or any other reasonably-interpreted law. The issue before them was actually a concerned community asking them to refuse to give a divisive and harmful national group a foot in Corvallis High’s door. Protecting their charges from hate speech and its consequences, at least in this writer’s humble opinion, is, and I’d bet MTSBA’s in their clearer moments, would agree.
But if Title VIII (which was originally lobbied for by powerful “Christian” groups who wanted to insert school prayer on campuses) is the hill the Corvallis trustees (and maybe MTSBA?) want to embarrass themselves on, there are still unanswered questions that should concern any thoughtful parent, taxpayer or both.
According to Title VIII, the club needs an accredited school employee (not the janitor or lunch lady) to sponsor it, which, as of this writing, it does not have. The original sponsor backed out when they found out what TPUSA was about. So…no sponsor, no club, right? Why the vote on allowing it then? Title VIII also specifies that:
- The group is not disruptive.
- Persons of the community that are not part of the school may not “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend meetings.”
- School officials preserve and have the right to monitor meetings.
- Officials preserve and have the right to require all clubs and/or groups to follow a set of guidelines.
- Persons of the community that are not part of the school may not “direct, conduct, control, or regularly attend meetings.”
So, if the Equal Access Act is indeed the aforementioned hill for our public education professionals, two points arise from these requirements. First is a question. How is Corvallis planning to make sure the “club” adheres to these rules when TPUSA’s mission specifically aims to break at least half of them? Corvallis Superintendent Pete Joseph assured attendees at the school board meeting several times, “I’m going to be heavily invested in the agenda items and topics that are brought up—it’s going to stay in that room. If it gets outside that room and people are feeling threatened, it will be shut down immediately.” Just the tone of that statement makes this writer pretty sure that Mr. Joseph is well aware of what he doesn’t want “outside that room.” which makes the statement meaningless. How, for instance, is Mr. Joseph going to “monitor” testosterone-charged teenage boys parroting the late Mr. Kirk’s beliefs about how women should “submit” to men and how contraceptives are not “biblical,” and then assure the community that a teenage girl won’t be impregnated against her will in the back seat of a Subaru by a Club America “true believer?” That’s like the 1920’s argument that the KKK was just a “civic service” organization teaching “leadership skills” and any untoward things they did on their own is…well…just unfortunate. (If you don’t believe that’s what the KKK was promoted as and let off the hook to do a hundred years ago, read a history book.)
Second is a call to activism to citizens concerned about TurningPoint USA being allowed into Corvallis High: Right now there is no sponsor. Therefore, no club, or at least there shouldn’t be. Is there? Better be a squeaky wheel and find out. Then, if and when it does materialize (it hasn’t yet), be there, in person, to monitor it closely to make sure school staff are on top of holding them to the non-disruptive guidelines of, say, a chess club.
by Guest Writer | Dec 18, 2025 | Candid Cartoon, Cascade County, Energy/Utilities
Nobody understands the blather Northwestern Energy is spouting to explain its plans for Colstrip, a subsidiary, customer credits, and … perhaps … bivationary falvebarms.
Published by jcolemanmoore
View all posts by jcolemanmoore
