Quote of the Day
We have been to the legislature in Idaho, we have a lot of support in legislature in Idaho for this idea. They see the benefit of bringing 400,000 like-minded people into their state. It makes Idaho stronger; it gives people the government they want and it’s a win-win for everybody involved.
Matt McCaw
Spokesman for the Greater Idaho Movement.
January 15, 2023
Oregon state senator introduces bill to give 65% of Beaver State to Idaho, after conservative residents of 11 counties voted to join its GOP-voting neighbor
With the extreme anti-gun climate in Western Oregon I am certain the movement will continue to be an attractive solution to the eastern Oregon counties.
A map I saw suggested that Greater Idaho might stretch through southwestern OR all the way to the Pacific, giving Greater Idaho a deepwater port on the ocean in Coos County.
Doing similarly to Washington would give Greater Idaho everything but the San Juan islands, the northern half of the peninsula, and the Olympia to Lynnwood I-5 corridor. Greater Idaho would have the entire north shore of the Columbia river, both sides and dams for quite a stretch, and the TriCities with the Hanford site just waiting for someone to build a nuclear reactor and actually let it go into operation.
Greater Idaho could split itself into multiple new states at a later date. It’s a long way around to arrive at the goal of kicking the greater Seattle and Portland metro areas out into their own little socialist reservations, but any way that gets there will ultimately be better than what we have now.
Time to buy property in Republic, Antelope, Baker City, Maupin, etc. before the exodus from Portland and Seattle. The Washington emigrants have screwed the property prices in Idaho, but if Greater Idaho comes to pass, there wouldn’t be a need to move so far east.
We seem to forget that renaming a place changes nothing. And the biggest problem is that we have allowed the constitution to be replaced by democracy.
All the things Idaho has, that Oregon doesn’t is because people elected think have a mandate to violate everyone’s rights.
Make Idaho larger, but allow the same attitude to steal elections the way they do in Oregon, and we/those same people will be screwed all over again.
Communism seeks out power and destroys, at all levels. Geography has little to do with it. Thats our enemy.
We need to start calling it plain. And stop thinking we can deal on an honest level with them. As they have never dealt with you on one. And never will.
The problems of this country are in 15 to 20 big cities. Why would we concede to give them all of western Oregon? Or one inch for that matter?
If you don’t want to live by the constitution. You don’t belong in this country.
Get out, or we will throw you to f–k out.
There is not one thing these communists are doing to us today that is not a crime. And not one of them that can’t be J6’ed legally. ( they should be begging a speedy trial, and fretting the day they get one.)
We own them nothing, and they have no part in America.
Or the republic for which it stands!
UNITED states, remember? Not globo homo, AI, clownworld.
F–k’in elitist communist snobs get nothing. Ain’t got a f–k to give, or an inch of ground! Has to be the attitude, or we lose.
The one reason I am pessimistic about the Greater Idaho effort, even though I am wildly supportive of the idea, is that the whole thing must be approved by all state legislatures involved and then approved by Congress. So, how does anyone realistically think that the Socialists of the West Coast will give up the money they are very effectively sucking out of the eastern and or rural areas of both Washington and Oregon? Incidentally, the Left Coast Loonies already control the state legislatures and dominate the Congressional delegations. So the only way to fix that is to some how convert the Lefties to Realists and if that can be done, the first problem is then taken care of. Not sure there is a viable solution short of the intense distress that will come when the economies of all parties involved collapse and people are starving. As Samuel Johnson once said, “Nothing so focuses the mind as the thought of a hanging.”
Here’s how you do it: You sell them what they want to buy.
I’ve heard it from more than one leftist, to my face: The rural parts of the state are money sinks. As far as they’re concerned, money is earned in Seattle and Portland and flows out to keep the rest of the state afloat. Since the Idaho legislature is also considering the Medicare/Medicaid burden of those parts of the Oregon relative to the tax base, there may be something to that. So, pitch it to the Portland and Seattle types as “cut them loose, let Idaho take them, and you can keep more of your money for programs near you”.
You can already sell them the “why do you want to be associated with cousin-humping rednecks” line and you don’t even have to follow up. They’re ready to believe anything about those people.
Just take every last reason they have to sneer at the mud people in the wastelands outside their shining cities, and throw it right back at them as a reason to endorse the split.
It’s not like the typical Democrat voter is suddenly going to develop a capacity to foresee second- and third-order consequences and consider what it will do to them to have a low-tax, low-regulation legal environment open up within driving distance.
Absolutely right. There are formal studies that the Leftists have commissioned saying the same thing. It is wrong but they believe it and that can be exploited. Leftists are incapable of understanding 2nd and 3rd order consequences so they look at the current budget and draw their conclusion. What they don’t get is that the reason that this is so is that the hinterlands have been exploited by the urban centers for 6000 years. Remove that and the hinterlands will flourish.
Both state legislatures have to pass legislation allowing this with both governors signing that legislation then Congress has to pass legislation approving it then Pedo Joe has to sign it. What are the odds all of that actually happens….
As I read this language from the Constitution
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
It would appear that there is no role for the governors or the President. It is simply a matter for the legislative branch.
The “consent” of a legislative body takes the form of a legislative act.
All legislative acts must be signed by the executive branch to be valid. As there is no precedent for such a thing your argument may end up as part of a court case in the very unlikely event the three legislative bodies “consent” without bothering to get an executive signature. I doubt it even gets that far.
Please *please* PLEASE take Spokane as we,, I promis I’ll stop making all… well, most… uh, some… OK, I’ll still make Idaho jokes but a as a proud Spudmonkey I’ll be allowed. 😛
And the first thing I’ll do is apply for a Form 1 – SBS, because of Washington’s dumbass laws.