Updated: Mar 15
Another election season and the primaries are not far off. Will Idahoans make good decisions or will history repeat itself for those that don't know it? Perhaps I may be paranoid, I guess time will tell.
I have been active for almost two decades and although I have seen good things happen, they have really been overshadowed by the the bad. Today the struggle for our survival is more real than it ever has been because so many people are now so active? Will more people active mean better decisions? We can only hope but I am not so sure.
I have always been told that many hands make light work and the more people involved the better. I have grown extremely leery or people that say things like this because to me, they are not or may not be seeing the bigger picture.
Where are these people coming from? What is their worldview? If they are refugees from neighboring states, is it a good thing they are here especially since most that moved here based their move on what they thought it was like rather than really knowing? If they apply this same principle to their involvement in politics, couldn't that be dangerous? It very well may be. It has been in the past.
I read in a book once that just because people of "like mind" move somewhere, it still changes the demographics and I believe this to be true. You can take a "conservative" in one state, place them in another state and they may not be the same, in my view, they usually are not. This isn't to say that people that come here aren't nice, in many cases they are but we should also think about other things like motive and intentions and although they may be good, so is the road to hell.
Most I know today seem to operate out of sheer emotion, almost to abandon the intellectual side of politics. Many involved today are relatively new and most likely don't realize that Idaho is caught between several extreme worldviews: 1. New people moving here that want to change our landscape and 2. a trans-generational deep state that wants to maintain control and 3. those that just want to be left alone and want the government to obey its oath to our Constitution and 4: factions
Problem 1: New people moving here blend well with the RINO's as well as the Constitutionalists because they all call themselves "conservatives" without as much as defining the term and because they don't, it really appeals to the ignorant. (I refuse to use it because it is meaningless and puts me in a collective box with people that can't define the term or others use it as camouflage.)
Problem 2: the trans-generational deep state Neocons or what people call RINO's commonly call themselves "conservatives" but when they are really angry with people that are not like they are, they not only attack them but further defiantly call themselves "true Idaho conservatives" as if somehow that more accurately defines the term...it doesn't because they never go so far as to say why they are what they call themselves. Isn't it ironic that those in office and those that are "conservatives" call people that are constitutionalists the enemy and call them extreme without further defining why and people believe it? Wasn't the oath they all take to the constitution?
Problem 3: Generally Constitutionalists are those that take great pains to understand our history and the documents that limits government and try to educate people to understand it when most people just want to be active without having to read. The sad part is that thinking this way and depending on what you read could also get you thrown into other tangents like the once considered "sovereign citizen movement." America doesn't survive when people are ignorant, period and thinking that Constitutionalists are "Sovereigns" or something else, only further muddies the water with not knowing any better.
Problem 4: Factions. Our Founder's warned us about factions or what I call splinter groups among the categories. The new people vary in education and understanding, among some are the ones that know more than others and some newer, just active. The Neocon RINO's are in control, they are united in their version of Marxism but many I think don't even realize it.
The Constitutionalists for example today are split as well, on one hand, the well read ones that understand and on the other, the emotional ones that are just itching for a fight. Additionally, a new phenomenon is that if you are not aligned with one or the other, you don't belong to any. This is what I refer to as individual collectivism, it bridges the gap between individual liberty and collectivism which, in my view is anything but Americanist.
So you have those listed in problem one that call themselves "conservatives" and for "for liberty" and use the Neocon mantra "Keep Idaho Red" and their only focus appears to fill precinct committee seats and get people to run for office. Is this a cause for concern? If it is and you question it and they know about it, you very well could be alienated for even questioning their motives, even if you just wanted to know without disrespecting anyone and they see you as divisive. I call this an Ego trip where being an activist is more about elevating ones self than focusing on the restoration of liberty. They will even go so far as to silence your voice in meetings and social media. Who does that but tyrants? Isn't tyranny what we are fighting and isn't free speech supposed to be protected and revered by "Liberty people?"
In the beginning I suppose these motivated individuals supposedly vetted their candidates but later, they are just picked if they breathe and are willing to run? As if that isn't enough, they are endorsed by these new groups as if there are experts that know better. How can people possibly be experts in recruiting people without even knowing who they are? Sadly, many that are active only in election times fall for the same garbage, again, and again. If someone looks like they are active and everywhere shall they somehow today have earned the trust of the activist community? You see, activism has changed over the years. People started paying attention back then, thy seemed better read and offered some intellectual understanding about why they were active, and rarely from what I know much back-biting, today, not so much.
The, what I now call the Neo-liberty movement, is classified by mostly women, mostly appearing emotional and most not truly understanding the political landscape. These groups are not only growing in popularity as new groups start every day but they all claim to do things a bit differently and are supported by others that don't seem to know much either whether they are life-long Idahoans that just woke up or transplants fearful of this state turning out like the one they left.
I have no issues with women starting groups. I also have no problem with them being successful. My concern is solely wanting to know where they came from, what they know, what their criteria is in choosing candidates, wanting to know why these new people running for office were not active before and what got them active now and more specifically why no one else seems to be asking these questions?
What are the Neocon RINO's doing? Parading around as "conservative republicans" enjoying the growing support they get from the "Liberty movement" on one hand that they would not have it were not in an election season, and while fighting the infiltration on the other appealing to democrats and independents to stomp our "right-wing extremism."
The RINO's are fighting for their lives doing whatever they can to maintain control. The new people are straddling the line not knowing who is really who but seem not to care and the Constitutionalists are the intellectual one's standing in the background active in ways that differ from the other groups that know education is the only way to make anything happen.
The factions are just preaching Constitution and liberty but if questioned, few of them seem to know much because they seem to want to do more than read about why they are doing what they are doing.
In reviewing my writing this morning, for those that don't now me, I realize it could look like I have hard feelings towards others and that somehow I may not be in the light as much as others but that isn't the case and it has never been the case. My only concern is restoring freedom for our state and our nation and if questions need to be asked and no one is asking them, I will to anyone on any topic. I will tell you that in my almost 20 years of activism, I have never experienced such cut throat attacks that come from my own people...ever. To me, knowing that alone means that someone's focus is off and it may be more about them than the bigger picture, I just hope not.
In other words is that as a long time activist, making sacrifices that we all do, we have invested lots of time in making sure our communities are safe and for others to come in and disturb that, if that is what they are in fact doing, it may do more to undermine what we are doing than help it. For example, this election, I have to contend with new precinct people I have never heard of before, certainly never met them, and a nice beautiful young lady that is not only 24 but I have never seen or heard of her before either. Is she a great candidate? I have no idea but I sure hope so!
My view is not only that Education is key but knowing people helps. Another thing is to remember not eat your own and if there are questions, they need to be considered. I also believe that one can't or shouldn't act until they understand why they are acting. Our Founders told us that it was a republic if we could keep it but they didn't mean by being stupid, ignorant or acting solely on emotion.
Sun Tsu said we must know the enemy and ourselves, we don't know either, at least enough to fight properly. It took us over 150 years to get here, there is no quick fix. If you want to get active, do it with intelligence. Drop your ego, if you have one, and become part of something greater than yourselves. The Bible talks about humility and that only a humble people can be victorious. I just wonder how long it will take my fellow American's to realize this.
The true ROA will begin to be revealed on who wins and later on whether who wins is doing what they said they would do or if Idaho is repeating the lessons from history.